GAMING AND BETTING (CONTRACTS AND SECURITIES) BILL …

[Tuesday, 16 April 1985]193

Tuesday, 16 April 1985

THE PRESIDENT (Hon. Clive Griffiths) tookthe Chair at 4.30 p.m., and read prayers.

BILLS (4): ASSENTMessage from the Governor received and read

notifying assent to the following Bills-I., Control of Vehicles (Off-road areas)

Amendment Hill.2. Artificial Conception Bill.3. Poseidon Nickel Agreement Amendment

Bill.4. Railways Discontinuance Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CHAMBERPhotographs and Television Camera

THE PRESIDENT: Honourable members, Ihave received a letter from the Audio Visual Edu-cation Branch which says, amongst other things,that the branch is producing a set of prints forsocial studies for the Distance Education Centre.One of the photographs is to be of the LegislativeCouncil during a sitting. 1 have given approval forthis photograph to be taken at the commencementof tomorrow's sitting on the normal conditions;that is, if anyone has any reason that we shouldnot do it I will consider the matter.

Just after the bells had commenced ringingtoday, I received a phone call from Channel 2asking for approval to update its film library. Ihave indicated that approval will be granted forthe Channel 2 crew to come in at the beginning oftomorrow's sitting, at whatever time that happensto be. Unless any honourable member knows somereason that we should not allow that, 1 intend togrant that permission.

ROAD: DOUGLAS AVENUEClosure: Petit ion

The following petition bearing the signatures of53 persons was presented by H-on. P. G. Pendal-

TO:- The Hon. The President and Mem-bers of the Legislative Council of the Parlia-ment of Western Australia in Parliamentassembled. WE, the undersigned citizens ofWestern Australia:

Being residents of Douglas Avenue,South Perth, and its environs, respect-fully request that the Minister for TownPlanning review the decision to excisethe closure of Douglas Avenue from theroad rationalisation plan of the City ofSouth Perth. Without such a closure ourhomes are subject to an inordinately

heavy volume of traffic which is ad-versely affecting them through vibrationand pollution.

Your Petitioners, therefore, humblypray that you will give this matter earn-est consideration and your Petitioners, asin duty bound, will ever pray.

(Sec paper No. S6 1.)

GAMING AND BETTING (CONTRACTS ANDSECURITIES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 April.

HON. G. E. MASTERS (West-Leader of theOpposition) 14.37 p.m.]: This is another Bill deal-ing with gambling brought in by the Government.On my calculation the Bills in Orders of the DayNos. I and 2 are the nineteenth and twentiethBills dealing with gaming and gambling mattersthat the Government has brought in since it tookoffice in 1983. That must be an all-time record.

This Bill is different from the others in a num-ber of ways, more particularly as regards the sec-ond reading speech. When the House is presentedwith a Bill, a second reading speech is normallymade to explain to members and to the publicwhat the Bill is all about. But the second readingspeech in this case was so complicated that I hadto read the Bill to understand the second readingspeech. For the information of members, I tookthe trouble to ring up the Minister and talk tohim, and he had the same trouble.

Hon. D. K. Dans: I have to agree.

Hon. G. E. MASTERS: It was an extraordinarysecond reading speech; it certainly did not makemuch sense to me. The Minister started off bysaying that the main objective of the Bill was toenable bookmakers to recover gamblingdebts-debts incurred in the course of their busi-ness.

It seemed to me that was only one reason. I maybe wrong in my reading of the Bill; I have spokento the Minister on a couple of occasions about theBill and tried to get some information.

Hon. D. K. Dans: 1 think that was needed.

Hon. G. E. MASTERS: It seems to me thatone of the reasons for the Bill's introduction is theestablishment of a casino. I could be wrong, butthat is how it appears to me.

The Minister did say in his second readingspeech that the proposals were recommended bythe Law Reform Commission and by the RoyalCommission into Racing and Trotting. For a mo-menit I shall dwell on the second reading speech,

1931

1932 COUJNCIL]

and perhaps the Minister could explain a few mat-ters; he might even have a rewritten speech formembers.

On page 2 of the Minister's speech notes can befound the following-

Although that Bill also repeals section 841of the Police Act, the subject matter of sec-tion 841 is re-enacted in clause 4 of this Bill.However, prescribed bets, including bets withbookmakers, are exempted from its pro-visions.

It later goes on to say-As already explained, clause 4 contains a

re-enactment of section 841 of the Police Act.This clause will also clarify the law in relationto the enforcement of cheques and other se-cu rities.

I do not read clause 4 of the Bill to mean that, andI believe there must be some mistake in the secondreading speech. The sidenote to clause 4 reads-

Certain contracts and agreements relatingto gaming and betting to be unenforceable.

However, the second reading speech refers to theenforcement of cheques and other securities. Ithink the Minister's second reading speech shouldhave referred to clause 5 because that relates tocontracts related to prescribed gaming or bettingwhich may be enforced.

The Minister's speech went on as follows-

Section I of the Gaming Act 1835 declaresthat instead of a security given in respect of abet being void, as was previously the law, itwas deemed to have been given for an illegalconsideration. This means that although thewinner cannot enforce the cheque himself, athird party could do so, provided he gavevalue for the cheque without knowing that itwas given in satisfaction of a gaming debt.

I really do not understand the first sentence. Isuppose there is a difference between "void" and"illegal". If a bet is declared void the cheque couldbe declared void as well. Perhaps the Ministercould explain later.

Further on in the Minister's second readingspeech we find the following-

In relation to gambling debts which are notgaming debts, although the winner cannot en-force the cheque himself, a third party can doso, whether or not that third party knew thecheque was given in satisfaction of the gam-bling debt.

It mentions "gambling" debt not '"gaming" debt.That means not a prescribed debt. Is this an illegaldebt? Obviously I am not a gambling man and Ido not fully understand the terms used in gam-bling. Nevertheless, the second reading speech re-

fers not to a "gaming" debt but to a "gambling"debt. The second reading speech goes on as fol-lows-

This is a distinction which has long beenthe law. The rationale is that it helps to dis-courage a person from "rigging" a game,collecting a cheque from the loser, and en-dorsing it to an accomplice.

I referred earlier to a part of the second readingspeech which indicated that "although the winnercannot enforce the cheque himself, a third partycould do so".and now we have this second piecewhich says "although the winner cannot enforcethe cheque himself, a third party can do so".

It goes on to say that the rationale is that ithelps to discourage a person from rigging a game,collecting a cheque from the loser, and endorsingit to an accomplice, who can then cash the cheque.

That seems contradictory. First we are told thata third person cannot cash the cheque and then weare told a third person can do so. The secondreading speech goes on to say-

This opportunity for fraud is not present inthe case of debts which are not gaming debts,for example, a bet between two persons as towhich footballer won the Sandover Medal ina certain year.

Again, because I am rather ignorant of gamingprocedures, I would like the Minister to tell mewhether during a game of cards played betweenpersons in a club or in a home, where one of themwrites out a cheque, that would be a recoverabledebt. The Minister is shaking his head and I guessmy example is one of illegal gambling. I think theMinister sees my point that there is conflict in hisspeech. I would be very interested to know exactlywhat is meant.

I will move now to consider what is in the Bill,because the second reading speech is much harderto follow. Clause 5 relates to contracts relating toprescribed gaming or betting, which may beenforced, and the schedule gives a list of Acts ofParliament which legalise betting. They are asfollows-

Totalisator ActTotalisator Regulation ActTotalisator Agency Board Betting Act

Lotteries (Control) ActLotto ActSoccer Football Pools ActCasino Control ActCasino (Burswood Island) Agreement ActPolice ActRace Meetings (Two-up Gaming) Act

1932

[Tuesday, 16 April 19851 13

It would also cover others prescribed in regu-lations outlining other legalised betting.

This seems to cover the area where a contract isdeemed to be made and where a person maysue-where a bookmaker or anyone else may suefor a bet not paid-in cases involving prescribed,or legal, gambling. I cannot understand how therecould be proof in certain circumstances that a bethas been made.

I understand that many people who attend racemeetings bet by the nod. I understand that theylay bets with certain bookmakers by means ofsome sort of nod or signal, usually in the case ofsubstantial bets of perhaps $1 000 or $2 000. Itcould be that a person lays a bet of $1 000 byscratching his nose or winking at a bookmaker andthen moves on. If he loses the bet and the book-maker finally catches up with him, the bookiecould say, "You owe me money because you madea bet of $1 000 with me a while ago and didn'tpay". The person could say, "I didn't". How canthat bet be proved? How could the bookmakerever sue a person who has made a bet by a nod orby same other such method? I do not think itwould be possible. The only way a person couldsue for non-payment of a debt was wheresubstantial proof could be shown, where there wassome written proof or some witness. I would likethe Minister to indicate how such a bet could becollected.

Clause 3 covers prescribed bets. These are betsthat are laid with a person such as a bookie, who islegally carrying on such a business, or with a per-son authorised to accept bets, and these people arecovered under an Act specified in the schedule.These are legal or prescribed bets.

Clause 6 allows money loaned or advanced to berecoverable; in other words, moneys advanced oncredit.

My understanding is that this certainly can berecoverable if there is a form of credit on theracecourse-and 1 am sure there is withbookies-which can be followed up and proved tobe a bet.

Let us take as an example the casino now underconstruction. Is my understanding correct that if 1were to walk into a casino with £50 in my pocketand started gambling and then found I had notenough money and wanted to raise another $400or £500, provided the management of the casinoagreed I was worth the risk of £500 and they couldtrust me for that amount or much more-and Iam sure many people gamble tens of thousands ofdollars-the casino could sue for the amount owedand the credit given? I think that is obvious. If Iam right, that is one of the main objectives of the

Bill-to make sure that when the casino nowunder construction is completed betting will bedone to a major extent by credit.

I guess one could make arrangements to useone's credit card to gamble at the casino. I do notknow whether that is right, but that is how I readthe legislation. Credit betting would be used to agreat extent and I could see people getting into agreat deal of trouble through betting at casinosand racecourses as well. There may be a readyavailability of credit at casinos through the use ofcredit cards or whatever. I think people couldgamble much more than they could afford andthose who suffer willI be those people and probably[heir families.

The Bill itself is fairly straightforward in manyways but there seems to be a number of loopholesor matters which need to be questioned. I will notraise them now because I think the Committeestage is the appropriate time to talk about them.They leave me with a great deal of concern. I pointout again that this is the nineteenth or twentiethBill the Government has introduced relating togambling. People can afford to spend only somany dollars on gambling and the encouragementbeing given will disadvantage many people andtheir families. it is a matter of concern to thecommunity, and people are becoming more andmore worried.

I agree this is a tidying up measure, and in theMinister's words it consolidates the laws to a stagewhere perhaps they are a little more easily under-stood. However, there is every justification forpeople to be concerned about more legislation be-ing churned out by the Government to make iteasier for people to gamble and lose money whichpossibly they can ill-afford.

I will deal with the question of bookmakers andcasinos in the Committee stage. I am notsuggesting we will oppose the Bill, but the Minis-ter should take note of his appalling second read-ing speech. It was obviously prepared for him and1 know it caused him concern. It was the worstsecond reading speech I have ever read; it didnothing for the Bill. The only way to understand itwas to read the Bill and then refer to the secondreading speech. That is not a good way to presenta Bill to the House.

HON. TOM McNEIL (Upper West) [4.54p.m.]: I rise to support the measure before theHouse, and in so doing say that I think it has beenrequired for a long time. People have been able toplace credit bets and then welsh on those bets. TheLeader of the House would be aware of a caserecently in which a bookmaker at one of the West-ern Australian tracks was owed a considerable

1933

1934 [COUNCIL]

sum of money by a punter. The bookmaker tookoff on holidays -and found the punter on the sameplane going to greener pastures, leaving behindhim a considerable bet which he had wagered andobviously had no intention of settling.

This measure will certainly balance the ledgerso that bookmakers have a chance to sue for therecovery of credit bets. A bet is a matter ofhonour. If it is good enough to accept a wager it isbeholden on betters to maintain their honour andfinalise their conimitment.

This is another recommendation which cameforth from the inquiry into racing and trottingconducted by this House. Hon. Norman Baxter,Hon. Fred McKenzie and Hon. GrahamMacKinnon served on that committee. It is pleas-ing, to think that the Government is taking somenotice of the recommendat ions of Select Com-mittees. I do not know whether Mr Dans wasinvolved in this but somebody must be readingthose reports. It is a pity that the report submittedby my Select Committee did not receive more careand concern from the relevant Minister. He de-cided to use a hatchet on it with reckless abandonand chop it up from the day it was laid on theTable of this House without reading the report.

I want to refer now to a situation which MrDans would know something about, of a punterwho had a bet owing to him by a bookmaker whohas since ceased operations. I understand thatIbookmakers have instituted a fidelity fund so thatif a bookmaker cannot meet his commitment apunter can go to the Bookmakers Associationwhich will make restitution of the bet laid. I knowseveral punters who have been caught by a book-maker who is no longer in operation: the bets wereon the nod and therefore those punters were nottoo sure of their standing.

Hon. D. K. Dans: I know the case.

Several members interjected.

Horn. TOM McNEI L: If I were a betting man Iwould probably be in that sort of situation, but asHon. Graham Edwards knows I am not a bettingman to any great extent.

I look forward to the Minister's reply in relationto punters who have money outstanding from abookmaker who has ceased operations. I would beinterested to know how those punters would goabout getting their money.

HON. P. H-. WELLS (North Metropolitan)[4.57 p.m.]: I last said we were on the slippery dipwhen we were dealing with another gambling Bill,and at that stage I thought that the Governmenthad introduced five gambling Bills. Since then Ihave been informed that I made a terrible error.

Hon. D. K. Dans:. This is not a gambling Bill.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: We have gone past theslippery dip when we get to the stage of 20 suchBills having been introduced; the foundations areprobably shaking.

I wonder where responsibility starts and stops inthis area. The Liquor Act contains provisionswhich make it an offence for a person to serveliquor to someone who is intoxicated. That Actimposes certain responsibilities on the industry.We have a Police Force to go around and enforcethat particular law. Where is the responsibility inthe proposition now before us in terms of the per-son accepting the bet? Where is his responsibilityto ensure that the person placing the bet can pay?Are we going to get to the situation where weexpect the court to take away the widow's home?That principle is being enshrined if one says thatthese matters can be taken to law. If a bet isenforceable in law like any other debt and a per-sont cannot pay it his home can be sold. If that isall right why have we accepted that we shouldprotect people? Why have any regulations at all inrelation to gambling-why not lift the lidaltogether?

Hon. D. . Wordsworth: They are.

Hon P. H. WELLS: That is right, and that iswhere we are on shaky ground.

Hon. Kay Hallahan: Are you saying thatwidows gamble more than other people?

Hon. P. H. WELLS: No, I am not. The membershould have an interest in this Bill in terms ofthose women who may lose their housekeeping. Ihave been confronted with cases of women whohave been caught up and lost their money and gotthemselves in all sorts of problems. I am askingthe Minister what requirement there is on thegroup of people affected by this Bill to take someresponsibility and provide some protection forthose placing bets. The Government expects manyother regulated industries to take responsibility fortheir actions.

It would appear chat this Bill is suggesting thatthis group of people could be irresponsible.

[Questions taken.]

I am saying that there should be some require-ment in this Bill to ensure that people are made tobe responsible. I suggest that without regulationsof this kind we will be legislating to bring irres-ponsibility into the industry.

Hon. Graham Edwards: Are you talking aboutbookies?

IIon. P. H. WELLS: No, I amn talking aboutthose people who bet;, for instance, in connection

1934

[Tuesday. 16 April 1985]193

with the game of two-up which must involvepeople who book up their bets, I refer in particularto the two-up game which is played at Kalgoorlie.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind honourablemembers that it is completely out of order foraudible conversation to be carried on in this Housewhile a member is on his feet. Certainly, the con-stant intcrjections are out of order. I suggest thatHon. P. H-. Wells direct his comments to the Chairand I will give him the assurance of my protection.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: Mr President, it is withpleasure that I direct my comments to the Chair. Iwas giving as an illustration an example of whatoccurred in regard to the game of two-up. It is myunderstanding that a group of people took the lawinto their own hands and said that no two-up wasto be played on pay day. That rule was not madeby the Parliament, but by a group of men whowanted to make certain that the pay packet wouldgo into the home and would not be gambled. Theyrealised there was a problem and it was a decisionthey took unto themselves.

It scems if that is the kind of example thatbetting, people set, the House should not be look-ing at a way to provide the industry with theability to take away the assets of gamblers. Aperson who inadvertently decides he can win agame of chance and continues to bet will find thatthe only asset he has, which may be his home, willbe taken from him. The foundations of this Statewill be shaken because this Bill will provide themechanism to take away his home.

Point of orderHon. JOHN WILLIAMS: I do not wish to be

discourteous to my colleague, but he has a pen-etrating voice in its natural state and amplified, asit is at the moment, it almost becomes intolerableto listen to and I want to listen to what Mr Wellsis saying. Mr President, can you instruct your staffto control the resonance of the microphone?

The PRESIDENT: 1 suffer in exactly the samenway as other members. I would have expected thatthe Operator of the recording equipment wouldmake absolutely sure there was only one micro-phone on at one time and I would hope that that isthe situation. I suggest to the honourable memberthat perhaps he lower his voice or push the micro-phone to one side.

Debate ResumedHon. P. H. WELLS: 1 want to ensure that every

rmember in this House hears every word of mycontribution!

I reinforce the point that this legislation is- pro-viding a mechanism which has not existed before.

Last time I was in New South Wales I learnedof a person who had lost his home through playingthe one-armed bandits. It is well known that agambler believes his next bet will be successful. Iwonder if, by this legislation, we are taking away aresponsibility which gamblers have imposed uponthemselves.

I am not a specialist in relation to this Bill, but 1refer to section 24 of the Betting Control Actwhich reads as follows-

No bookmaker, and no person employed bya bookmaker, shall receive or agree or prom-ise to receive, as the consideration for a bet,delivery, or an agreement or promise to de-liver, property other than money.

Hon. D. K. Dans: He cannot pay you out inpotatoes.

Hon. P. H-. WELLS: My understanding is thatit requires money. People cannot pay using housesorjewellery They can give nothing but money.

Hon. D. K. Dans: That has nothing to do withthis Bill.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: Under the Betting ControlAct, a bookmaker cannot take anything butmoney, but that is inconsistent with the Bill beforeus because the section we are talking about pro-vides that a person can give any valuable thing.

I wonder if the valuable thing would be recover-able in a court, and if this is inconsistent withwhat the Bill provides. We are allowing people inthe community to bet using Chneir houses and theirvaluables when, in the past, we said they could notdo that. That is the change we see. I may betotally wrong in raising this question, but that isthe way I read the Bill and I find it inconsistent. Iam sure that the Minister, with his wide experi-ence in gambling, will be able to correct me.

I believe that the great changes we are seeing ingambling in this State create a great danger.When [ last spoke on this subject, I waschallenged that my views were inconsistent withmy actions. However, I was paired on that oc-casion. My duties as a member of Parliamentcause me to accept engagements at the trots, andit is suggested that that is inconsistent with mystand. Wel, I say that I also do not drink, but Ihave a history of forming a number of associationsinvolved in hotels. The fact that I frequent a hoteldoes not mean that I have decided to drink. Iabstain from liquor. I do not place a bet, althoughI went into a TAB agency on one occasion; butthat does not mean that a person becomes a gam-bler.

Hon. Tom McNeil: Did you win?

1935

1936 COUNCIL]

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I said I did not bet. 1 wentthere as part of my responsibility. It would appearthat, all of a sudden, for some reason or other, weas legislators have had a complete turnaround onthe subject of gambling. I cannot see why thatgreat change has taken place. In other words, Icannot see why we should open up this great areaof gambling.

We should treat this Bill with a little bit ofcaution because there will be a cost to pay; andthat cost will be paid by the Government.

HON. JOHN WILLIAMS (Metropolitan) [5.13p.m.]: I rise to disabuse some people of some ofthe illusions they have about the gambling world.This legislation has come into this House becauseof a new phenomenon in the gambling field. Thecreation of a casino involves certain things to bedone in the gambling field.

Hon. David Wordsworth is a native of a Statewhich, 10 years ago, pioneered casino gambling inAustralia. If a member of Parliament went to thatcasino or if you, Mr President, as the Presidentwere to go to any of the legal casinos-WrestPoint, or what have you-and you had a pocketfulof money and it ran out, there is no way in theworld you could get credit, because you would notbe known in that place.

The same applies to the very casual attitudethat some members take to what is called "bettingon the nod". One does not actually bet on the nod;one goes up and tells the bookmaker that onewants to bet so much money; and if one has theprearrangement with the bookmaker, one can nodat hi m a nd he knows one mea ns $ 10 each way onsomething or other. Betting on the nod involvesthe bookmaker, as a businessman, in examiningone's credit background. I know of people who goto the races with no more than $2 on them butthey bet $10 000 in an -afternoon's racing. They donot want to carry a large amount of money aroundwith them, and they certainly do not want to walkoff the racecourse with a bundle of money in theirpockets, because there are people of ill repute onracecourses around the world. I might add thatdoes not apply as much in Western Australia.Those people like to make their mark on a personwho is a big winner. Therefore, the bookmakerprovides a service that he would pay out bycheque, if necessary, on the course; or, better still,if one goes to a settlement place, payment is madethere. In Perth, settling day is on Monday at 12noon at TattersalIl's Club.

Hon. P. H. Wells: Young and Jackson's inMelbourne.

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: Yes, I think so, andit is Tattersall's Club or the Jockey Club in theUnited Kingdom.

The point is that gambling is a two-way street.Nobody could ever persuade you, Sir, to go outand put $ 10 000 on a horse. Of that 1 am absol-utely sure. However, if you were of a mind to do soand you could afford it, you would do so. Of that Iam absolutely sure.

If one wants to take the credit argument evenfurther, over the last two years it has been possibleto arrange for an amount of money to be put in adeposit account under one's name, encoded to acertain number at the Totalisator Agency Board.One can bet to the limit of one's credit by tele-phone. However, when one's credit runs out, thesaving grace is that one cannot bet any furtherbecause one does not have sufficient funds.

Hon. Peter Wells raised one Or two questions,and I want to tell him a thing or two about illegalgambling and illegal casinos in this fair city. Iknow that With some operators one can put upalmost anything on a bookmaker's pledge. I haveseen rings, watches, lumps of gold, Mercedes,Rolls Royces, and the like, pledged on betting.That does not happen in the racing fraternity withbookmakers.

The bookmaker is well aware of whom his cli-ents are. The clients arc business, professionalpeople who are known to the bookmakers. If anymembers wish to test the veracity of what I amsaying, let themn go next Saturday to the race-course, not talk to the bookmaker beforehand, butgo up and ask if they can get credit from him.

Hon. D. J. Wordsworth: Why do they want thisBill?

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: They want this Billbecause there are people who will punt with themand they do not have the money. They have lost,and they will not pay what I consider to be a debt.All the bookmakers are asking for is the sameprotection as that given to any other person pro-viding a service.

Hon. D. K. Dans: As bookmakers have had inall the other States for many years.

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: The bookmakers ap-pear to be second-class or even third-class citizensin this State because of the reputation that hasflowed traditionally from SP bookmakers.

Strangely enough, recent reading of reports in-dicates that the State of Western Australia is theleast affected by SP bookmaking. It is thecleanest-run gambling State in Australia. Thoseare not my words, but they are taken from the

1936

[Tuesday, 16 Apr1 1985]193

many reports on gambling and gaming compiledfrom time to time,

I support the Bill, because it is fair for a book-maker who makes a business commitment to beentitled to have that business returned to him.After all, he balances up his books on the under-standing that the money owing to him will be paid.In turn, if he does not pay up, he is thrown out ofthe association. Let us not forget that the numberof bookmakers in this State is dropping by theweek, and not many people now want to run abook. The number is dropping because, in racingparticularly, other modes of betting have come in.They include such things as the TAB, which influ-ences the punters as to how they should go.

It is not a question of bookmakers being verywealthy; they have wonderful winning days andwonderful losing days too. However, the Book-makers Association will ensure that, if one of itsmembers defaults, its trust fund will make up thedeficiency. Indeed, the association will quicklypull into line any bookmaker who is a little reck-less with his money on or off the course.

I have only one question to ask the Minister. Iknow it does not relate to the contents of the Bill,but I thought that perhaps he might be able toprevail upon the Parliamentary Draftsman to dosomething about it by way of amending the Bill. Irefer to the way in which bookmakers have beenlegislated against up until now.

Did you, Sir, know that a bookmaker may em-ploy 10 or 12 staff and once a year he may wantI togo away on holiday or visit another part of theworld to pursue various business interests and, ifhe does so, he must close down his bookmakingbusiness? A bookmaker is not allowed to say to hismanager, "Carry on in my absence". Such a pro-hibition is punitive.

A simple analogy can be drawn between a book-maker and the managing director of a company. Ifa managing director wants to go away on holiday,he is entitled to do so. If he wants to go away forthree months, three weeks, or three days, he maysay to his colleagues or his manager, "Run thebusiness as well as you can and stand the risks inthe same way as I do".

Perhaps the Minister, if not in this Bill, in somefuture Bill aimed at tightening up the laws inrelation to credit and gambling, could give con-sideration to bookmakers who are affected in thatway, so that they may employ their managers andagents to act in their place.

If one wishes to establish a line of credit at acasino, one can be sure the operators of a casino

will be as keen as any credit company to ensurethat one can meet one's just debts.

I assure Hon. Peter Wells that it would be aretrograde step if furniture and the like could beconfiscated. However, that is not the case. Theonly action that can be taken in respect of book-makers is that they can sue for money, which isthe commodity in which they deal.

With those few remarks, I support the Bill.

HON. D. K. DANS (South Metropoli-tan--Minister for Racing and Gaming) [5.23p.m.]: I thank the members who have spoken onthe Bill. I particularly thank the Leader of theOpposition for his contribution. I agree with himthat it was the most difficult second readingspeech I have had to deliver and it is a very diffi-cult Bill to understand.

Some of the questions raised in connection witha Bill of this nature are better answered in Com-mittee. It is a small Bill, but it is very complex.

I make the point that this recommendation wasmade by the Law Reform Commission in 1977. AsI understand it, the requisite Bills were drawn up,but, because of their complicated nature, theywere not proceeded with. I do not have any argu-ment with that, but we have decided now to pro-ceed with this legislation to bring our laws intoline, at least to some extent, with those of otherStates.

Briefly, in June 1983 a review committee wasestablished to consider problems encountered bybookmakers in the course of operating theirbusinesses. Bookmaking is a legitimate businessand bookmakers are licensed and pay taxes to theState.

Many mlatters have been attended to as a resultof the committee's work, and the proposed changeto the law to allow licensed bookmakers to recoverdebts which arise from on-course credit betting isone of the outstanding matters to be cleared up.

I appreciate some of the points raised by MrWells, but he strayed from the point.

I thank Mr Williams for his fine explanation ofhow credit betting is attended to, because I hadbeen; snowed by the term "betting on the nod".Indeed, I wondered how one would get on if onesaid, "When I walked past Lhe bookie, I nodded".I wondered how one would prove that in a court oflaw, and I doubt that it could be proved.

However, this Bill is aimed at people who estab-lish credit with a bookmaker. Before one can dothat, one must be rather well heeled. The pro-visions of the Bill will provide some protection forthe bookmaker from the dishonest person who betson credit and takes his winnings-perhaps they

1937

1938 [COUJNC IL]

could be to t he tu ne of Sl100C00-a nd then goesback to the bookmaker next week, makes a similarkind of bet on credit, then says to the bookie. "Iam sorry; I am not paying". That might soundcrazy, but it happens from time to time. From myexamination of the legislation in this State. I donot believe it is possible for anyone to have hishouse repossessed, or the like.

The existence of legislation which allows abookmaker to recover debts incurred at law Isenough to dissuade people from offending in thatway. It would have been wrong simply to clear theway for bookmakers to recover unpaid debts with-out clarifying all the law in the area-we couldsimply have said, "This is how you can recoverunpaid debts--especially as in 1977 the LawReform Commission made extensiverecommendations to achieve this clarification.

1 will not weary members by reading pages ofthe report of the Law Reform Commission. Suf-fice to say it is a very good report. It uses termssuch as "weishing" and the like, and it appeared tome that the members of the commission knewwhat this was all about.

As concisely as I can, I shall summarise theeffect of the two Bills which result from the reportof the Law Reform Commission. These Bills willclarify the law so that licensed bookmakers mayrecover debts which arise in the ordinary course oftheir business. Punters will also be able to recoverdebts arising from betting transactions with book-makers.

I know a fund exists into which bookmakerspay, but a bookmaker must have a record of thebet. Recently I discussed this matter. Withoutgiving names, in the case referred to by MrMcNeil, no records were available. The Book-makers Association is very worried, because somemoney was outstanding. Indeed, I believe the casefound its way to law. However, that is anotherissue which I shall take up in an endeavour to havethat area tightened up.

A bookmakcr or punter can enforce a chequegiven in payment of a debt resulting from a bet. Irefer there to a case in which a cheque is madeout, but the person who made out the cheque thensays, "You have the cheque, but I shall cancel it".

Where a borrower gives a cheque or other se-curity to the lender in settlement of a loan forgaming or for the payment of a gaming debt, thecheque or security will be enforceable if thegaming was lawful.

Hon. G. E. Masters: This is what will happennow, is it?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Yes. It is of no use onetrying to do that at a two-up game. I have never

known people participating in a game of two-up toborrow. Indeed, I doubt whether anyone wouldwelsh on a bet in that case. However, the point ismade that the betting must be lawful. In otherwords, in respect of the case about which one readin the paper the other day, because the bet wasunlawful, there was no case to answer.

Money lent for betting will be recoverable if thebet was lawfulI.

An anomaly is renmoved which allows a punterwho pays a betting debt by cheque to subsequentlysue for recovery of the value of the cheque. Ibelieve that has happened, because no law existedto protect the bookmaker.

The Law Reform Commission's report was con-cerned to make enforceable only those betsspecially authorised by Statute and in particularthose bets made with bookmakers pursuant to theBetting Control Act.

However, the Gaming and Betting (Control andSecurities) Bill, while fulfilling thisrecommendation of the Law Reform Commission,goes further by empowering the Governor to makeregulations prescribing the bets or class of betswhich can be made enforceable.

That is a perfectly sensible approach to the mat-ter. Nothing sinister is contained in the Bills.Their object is simply to allow lawful bets andsecurities given in consideration of them to bedealt with in the same way as other contractsentered into by persons conducting businesses. TheHouse would be able to follow that matter fairlyclearly, but it becomes difficult in regard to theActs that have to be managed and, as the papersrightly said, one or two of those Acts go back 150years.

To deal with another area, over the weekend Iread in the newspaper an article written by ajournalist which was quite misleading because itused the term "regulate all SP' bets". With all duerespect, starting price bookmaking is illegal, sothat article was very misleading.

Hon. Gordon Masters commented on this mat-ter and I discussed it with him because this is oneof those Bills about which we must show somediscretion. He raised with me, as he has also donequite correctly in the House tonight, the questionof the casino and how this legislation would affectcasino credit betting. We had a discussion aboutthis matter and we were not quite clear on it. It isnot the case that this Bill will deal with the casinoquestion. The Bill, although difficult to follow,simply attempts to clarify the law relating to theenforceability of lawful bets-nothing more,nothing less. The legislation will allow lawful bets

1938


and securities given in consideration of them to bedealt with as contracts at law.

Clause 21 (d) of the schedule to the Casino(Burswood Island) Agreement Act provides thatthe casino gaming licence when issued will be sub-ject to a condition that credit shall not be cxtendedto any person without the prior consent of theCasino Control Committee. This condition wasimposed at the request of the developers of thecasino complex. That is a rather strange require-ment for a casino because nearly all casinosaround the world provide facilities for credit bet-ting. Before credit betting is allowed with a book-maker certain procedures are followed. A book-maker will have an arrangement similar to that ofthe TAB. A person must lodge a sum of money tobe drawn upon. He says he is going to the casinoand that his name is so and so and, if necessary, hewants some credit. The bank records are thenchecked out.

However, in this case no credit betting will beallowed unless it is first authorised by the CasinoControl Committee. That condition was insertedinto the Casino Control Act at the insistence ofthe people who at that time intended to obtain thelicence. I think I can understand why they insistedon that provision. It would allow them to keepgoing when the only legal tender was cash in hand.

I do not want to mislead the House. At somestage down the track if the Casino Control Com-mittee were to decide that under certain circum-stances Credit could be extended to certain people,of course credit would be allowed under the con-ditions that 1 have just outlined to the House,where one's credit is established before visiting thecasino.

I was a bit amazed with that provision. Perhapsdue to an abundance of caution by the draftsman,the Casino Control Act has been included in theschedule to the Gaming and Betting (Contractsand Securities) Bill. However, not all the Actsmentioned in the schedule may in the future beamended or repealed. The Bill currently before theHouse will leave a residual law to carry on in thecase of an Act not covering every situation whichmay arise.

I have had very careful discussions on this Billand for the benefit of members of the House I willread a very short note from the head of the depart-ment, and place on record some of the difficultiesthat have been associated with this Bill.

Hon. G. E. Masters: Could I just interrupt youthere? Do you say that where one of the Acts inthe schedule lays down that certain conditions pre-vail, when no conditions are laid down this Billwill apply? Is that what you are saying?

Hon. D. K. DANS: That is virtually what I amsaying. The note reads as follows-

[ refer to your request for a concise sum-mary of the effect of the Gaming and Betting(Contral and Secuuities) Hill and the ActAmendment (Gaming and related provisions)Bill 1985.

These Bills touch on a complex and obscurearea of the law and it is difficult to be briefdue to the complexity. However, a summaryis attached for your information together witha copy of the Law Reform Commission Re-port on Section 2 of the Gaming Act therecommendations of which are the basis forthe amending legislation.

It is a difficult Bill and I have taken into accountmany of the matters that have been put to me byHon. Gordon Masters but, in all fairness, in orderto achieve some clarity and to be as concise aspossible, those matters will be better addressedduring the Committee stage when hopefully I willhave the assistance of people who are better versedthan 1 am in the legal Complexities Of the legis-lation.

Before I sit down, I point out that the LawReform Commission recommended this course in1977 and it is quite obvious that because of thecomplexities in regard to repealing some legis-lation, it was not proceeded with. The time hasarrived, for some of the reasons I have outlined,when legislation such as this, which will protectthe bookmaker who, after all, is paying a tax tothe State and who is not acting illegally-he is alegal entity-deserves some protection. That pro-tection, of course, when enforced from time totime, has the effect of stopping people welshing onpeople.

I support the Bill.Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In CommitteeThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Hon. P.

H. Lockyer) in the Chair;, Hon. D. K. Dans(Minister for Racing and Gaming) in charge ofthe Bill.

Clauses I and 2 put and passed.

Clause 3: Interpretation-Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF I ask the Minister to

inform me in relation to the definition of"prescribed gaming" which is contained in thisclause whether playing the game of poker is legalor illegal, and whether poker is one of the gameswhich may be played or may be prescribed, andwhether it depends on where the game is

1939

1940 [COUNCIL]

played-whether it is played in a hotel, a club or aprivate house.

Hon. D. K. DANS: I am informed that pokercould be a prescribed game under the legislation. Iwill read my notes and return to my expert whomay be able to fill me in on this matter.

Historically, there are many types of gambling;,for instance, a game of cards which is not anunlawful game by Statute. "Gaming" is defined inthe Police Act as the playing of a game of chance.

Quite often people bet on games which are notgames of chance but are games of skill; forexample, a golf match.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: That is certainly a game ofchance.

Hon. D. K. DANS: Fair enough. It has beensaid that the playing of blackjack, which is a formof poker, is a game of skill. The short answer Isthat it could be a prescribed game, but not in one'shome.

Hon. G. E. Masters: [ thought you said that agame of cards at home is now unlawful.

Hon. D. K. DANS: If it is prescribed, it couldbe in the home.

Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: Do [ take it fromthat, that the playing of poker is illegal, at thepresent time, unless one plays it at home, or is itillegal wherever it is played?

Hon. D. K. DANS: The playing of poker formoney is illegal at present. However, if it is playedin a private home, it is not illegal unless the placeis established as a common gaming house.

Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: Perhaps I could ask mytwo questions now. I take it that the playing ofpoker in a club which is open only to club mem-bers would be perfectly legal at the present time.Is that so? I understand it would not be legal if itwere played in an hotel. My second question is: Ifthe playing of poker is now illegal, generally, doesthe Minister propose that poker will be one of theprescribed forms of gaming referred to in the defi-nition in this clause?

Hon. D. K. DANS: At present it is illegal if it isplayed in a club. It would be deemed to be acommon gaming house if that were to happen. TheGovernment has no intention of prescribing poker.

Hon. 1. G. !vldcalf: So there is no intention ofprescribing poker at the present time?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Not at present.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: Is it possible, under thedefinitions, for a game presently unlawful to be-come a prescribed game? In other words, would itbe possible to make lawful what is at present un-lawful?

Hon. D. K. DANS: It would not be possible, inthe way the member is proposing, for the Govern-ment to change something unlawful to somethingthat is lawful.

H on. P. H-. W EL LS: The d efin ition provi des themechanism for prescribing a game as lawful, anddeals with prescribed bets. Following on fromwhat the Minister said, is the definition of a lawfulbet included in the decfinition of "prescribedgaming"?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Prescribed betting will niotoverride anything that is unlawful under this law.

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: I am getting moreconfused by the moment. Would the Minister ad-vise me whether the 200-kilometre rule applies?

Hon. D. K. DANS: The member would be welladvised to read the casino control legislation. Thegames played in the casino cannot be playedwithin a 200-kilometre radius of the casino.

Hon. G. C. MacKinnon: They will be played;poker will be played for sure.

Hon. D. K. DANS: Some forms of poker. Theonly games that will be allowed to be played insidethe 200-kilometre limit are two-up or those gamesgenerally not played in the casino.

Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: It seems that theGovernment has the opportunity of prescribingany game of chance or skill under the definition of"prescribed gaming" by prescribing it underclause 7 of the Bill. I cannot really see that theGovernment will be limited. I note that most sec-tions of the Police Act will still apply and there-fore, presumably, the Government will not pre-scribe the game of ihimblerig. That might be arelief to many people who like to play that gameillegally. However, it seems that the Governmentwill have an open slather to prescribe any gamewhich is a game of chance if it wishes because thisStatute would seem to override any previous one.

Hon. D. K. DANS: Clause 5 states that wecannot prescribe any game that does not have alawful bet.

Hon. G. E. Masters: A lawful bet is a prescribedbet, which goes back to prescribed gaming.

Hon. 0. K. DANS: Not really.Hon. I. G. MEDCALF: There seems to be some

divergence of view here, because if a game isprescribed, under clause 4 the contract is enforce-able and the cheques and so on can be sued upon.There seems to be a problem about a bet madeuinder clause 5. 1 draw attention to this, because Isee that this will provide some future Field forlitigation.

Hon. D. K. DANS: I apologise for the wronginformation I was given. Yes, it could be

1940


prescribed, but I do not think that the Governmentwould make a wholesale assault on prescribingthis, that, and the other thing. That is-too mucheven to contemplate as this Bill is fairly precise inits aims.

li-on. 1. G. Medcalf: You will not prescribethimblerig, I hope.

Hon. D. K. Dans: I doubt it very much.Hon. G. E. MASTERS: I refer again to the

game of poker played in the home for money. MrDans said that that is not unlawful, but neither isit prescribed.

Hon. D. K. Dans: That is right.

Hon. G. E. MASTERS: So it is not unlawfuland it is not prescribed. Let us presume that I playa game of cards with Mr Dans and money is lostIt is not an unlawful game. but neither is it aprescribed game, and I collect a cheque from MrDans. Am 1 able to enforce that cheque?

Hon. D. K. DANS: No, that cheque cannot beenforced at present or under the Bill.

Hon. G. E. MASTERS: In other words,although the game is not unlawful, neither is itprescribed. One can only enforce a cheque under aprescribed game or through a prescribed bet. Theonly way one can enforce cheques, debts andcredits-in other wards, legally get back themoney-is when those credit bets are undertakenunder a prescribed game, as a prescribed bet. Isthat right?

Hon. D. K. DANS: That is as I understand it.

Hon. G. E. MASTERS: Many people playcards at home and I am sure that many of thembet fairly large sums of money and give cheques aspayment for debts. The loser would pay the winnerby cheque quite often. I am simply asking whetherthose cheques are enforceable. I understand theMinister to have said that they are not enforceablebecause although the game is not unlawful,neither is it a prescribed game. I just wonderwhether clause 5 applies to the collection of thatbet.

Hon. D. K. DANS: A cheque cannot beenforced by the winner, but if that cheque is givento a third party who did not know what it wasfo r-

Hon. G. E. Masters: This is for a game ofcards?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Yes, a game of cards insomeone's home. The member has drawn a veryextreme case. If that third party took the chequealong to a bank and did not know it was for agambling debt, the bank could enforce the cheque.

I-on. G. E. Masters: It sounds very complicatedto me.

I-on. D. K. Dans: It is very complicated, I as-sure you.

Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF I think that this situ-ation may bc cured when we pass 'the Bill, becauseit will repeal section 84(1) of the Police Act,which declares these bets to be unenforceable.

I-on. P. H. WELLS: If I am correct in myunderstanding of what the Minister said, it wouldbe possible for the Government to prescribe anygame as a lawful game, despite the fact that someother Act said it was unlawful. If that is correct,why should we not include in that particular defi-nition that "prescribed game" means gaming ex-cept unlawful gaming? The Government surelydoes not intend to cover unlawful gaming or toallow the prescription of any of those games thatare currently unlawful by some other Act becauseof a definition of "unlawful gaming". It seems tome that the definition of "prescribed gaming"gave the Government the ability virtually to makesuch games lawful by that definition and otherdefinitions.

Hon. D. K. DANS: Mr Medcalf referred tosection 84(l) of the Police Act. That provision isre-enacted in clause 4 of this Bill.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I return to the question Ihave asked the Minister. I am asking whetherunder the definition of "prescribed game" a gamewhich is now illegal by some other Act can beprescribed and become lawful just by announcingit in the Government Gazette. If that is the case,why should not the definition of "prescribedgaming" be such as would mean gaming exceptunlawful gaming conducted under and in accord-ance with the authorisation of the Act? Whyshould those words not be included in the deli-nition of "Prescribed gaming" to make it clearthat there is no power to bring up any other gamecovered by another Act?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Both my adviser and myselffound it very difficult to follow what the membersaid. The answer would have to be that anyregulation that needed to be put would bedisallowed by the House.

Clause put and passed.Clause 4 put and passed.

Clause 5: Contracts relating to prescribedgaming or betting may be enforced et.-

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I ask whether the Ministercan give me some idea of what is meant by-

Subject to the provisions of an Act speci-fied in the Schedule or to any prescribed pro-vision relating thereto..

1941

1942 [COUNCIL]

What type of prescribed provision is likely to beput upon the particular things referred to in theschedule? Has the department thought of any atthis stage? What type of provisions can we ex-pect?

Hon. D. K. DANS: It would be a prescribedprovision or section of an Act-the Police Act, forinstance. To give the member a better rundown, towhich he is entitled, I will give a fuller explanationof clause 5. It provides that a person making alawful bet or wager in the course of prescribedgaming or betting shall be deemed to have made acontract for the wager or bet and may sue and besued on that contract as if the contract did notinvolve gaming or betting. In other words, thenormal process of law would apply. Such a con-tract shall not be deemed to be illegal or void onlybecause it arises out of betting or gaming. Thisclause will alter the existing situation by makingall the bets, including wages, enforceable wherethose bets had been prescribed as defined. I do notknow whether that helps clear up the member'squery-I am not quite sure what it was-but if itdoes not he can reply and I will do my best toanswer him.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I am tryi ng to get anunderstanding of the prescribed provisions. I askthe Minister whether it is possible under clause 5to declare that a certain person should not be ableto get provisions. Is it possible that the Ministercan make provisions that ensure that on certaindays those particular things are out of the ques-tion? Is it possible under the prescribed provisionsto put certain limitations against variouscategories that are found within the schedule? Inother words, could the prescribed provision in con-nection with soccer and football pools, forexample, relate only to the weekend?

Sitting suspended from 6.00 to 7.30 p.m.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: During the tea suspension,was the Minister able to work out any possibleprescribed provisions that might be proposed inrelation to the second line of the clause and inrelation to those Acts listed in the schedule? Washe able to establish whether the limitations I wassuggesting were possible?

Hon. D. K. DANS: I am finding it fairly diffi-cult to answer Hon. Peter Wells and to follow thequestions he is asking, and this is no reflection onhim. This is not unexpected, because my briefingduring the suspension indicated that judges andsenior members of the Bar were also unclear aboutthis legislation. All they know is that they wantthe old legislation out and the new one brought in.

I think what he has asked is: If I prescribesomething under this Bill and it is somethingcovered by another Act, what will happen?

Hon. P. H. Wells: Why do you want prescribedprovisions?

Hon. D. K. DANS: The reason is that someActs do contain some of this very old legislation.We wvill be able to prescribe those sections of thoseActs rather than the whole Act.

Hon. N EIL OLIVER: The Minister seems to besaying that he can prescribe whatever game maybe covered by the Acts in the schedule, eventhough a game may be illegal under the PoliceAct. The Minister may prescribe any game ofchance or skill irrespective of whether it is illegalunder the Police Act. Is that so?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Let us take as an examplethe game of thimblerig. I could prescribe that forthe purpose of perhaps allowing the Red Cross toplay it at a social function at a local hall. How-ever, although I might prescribe it, it would still becovered by the Police Act and it would be up tothe police to decide whether to take action, be-cause it would still be unlawful under the PoliceAct. Unless some tolerance was shown by thepolice, the game would still be unlawful.

However, it is most unlikely that I would dothat. I could say that Hon. Neil Oliver was goingto hold a charity function and 1, as Minister,would prescribe that game for the purposes of thisAct. Surely members would understand that itwould involve two Ministers. I would be a verygame person indeed to do that, because the PoliceAct has certain sections which cover the playing ofthis game. While I could prescribe it, I would haveto rely on the tolerance of the police. This used tobe the order of the day in lots of areas.

Hon. G. E. MASTERS: I do not know whetherI am going mad slowly or rapidly. The Ministerhas just said that he could prescribe a game for acharitable function. Surely he could do that onlyby regulation, which would have to be tabled inthe Parliament and passed by the Parliament. TheMinister seems to be saying that the legislationprovides him with the ability simply to prescribe agame for a particular purpose on a particular daywithout using a regulation. If that is so, I cannotsay that I read that in the Bill. It would seem tome that whatever game was prescribed, a regu-lation would be required.

Hon. D. K. DANS: I said before the tea suspen-sion that regulations wvould have to be tabled inthe House.

Under the Police Act, the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services has the power to giveexemptions and this, of course, would have to be

1942


done by regulation. 1 think it would be bowling thehoop a little too fast to suggest that I would pre-scribe a game to allow the Salvation Army toconduct that game in its citadel because it wasrunning short of runds, and I would table theregulation in the Parliament to allow that ta hap-pen. If I did, I would have to hope that the Minis-ter for Police and Emergency Services would pro-vide a similar exemption or that the police them-selves would show some tolerance. But that is notlikely to be something that would happen.

Hon. P. H-. WELLS: It was interesting to hearthe Minister say he was having difficulty under-standing my questions; I am having difficultyunderstanding his Bill.

Hon. D. K. Dans: So is everyone else.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I wonder whether weshould be considering the passing of this Bill whenits contents are not clear to us. I have been led tobelieve that it virtually totally changes the methodby which unlawful games can be prescribed. Theclause indicates that a game may be prescribedsubject to provisions of certain Acts, which arespecified in the schedule, and one Act is the PoliceAct. So we are talking about a game which can beprescribed by way of a regulation.

I gather that any sort of wording can be used ina regulation. The Minister referred to the RedCross being allowed to play a prescribed game. Iassume that the Minister therefore could excludeAborigines and provide that they could not bet.

It excludes people who have previously beencharged with an offence under this particular Actfrom being able to book up bets. How wide can theprovisions go? 1 gather the Bill could prescribethat investments on soccer pools could only bebooked up at newsagents or at a list of gazettedpremises The clause refers to "prescribed pro-vision". That means whatever is published in theGovernment Gazette and tabled in this Chamberrelated to those Acts listed in the schedule.

Hon. Graham MacKinnon asked earlier aboutthe 200-kilometre limit. We are dealing here withbooking up bets. Say that only applies to two-upwithin a 100 or ISO0-kilomnetre radius.

Hon. Neil Oliver: It cannot.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: This Bill refers to the"Schedule or to any prescribed provision". Surely"any prescribed provision" is open-ended. It could

be the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, as theMinister mentioned, or any group of people whocan get credit betting and be required to go tocourt and pay the debt.

The provision is very wide and relates to any ofthe Acts listed in the schedule and places some

limitation or extension on the Acts to exclude orinclude certain people within or without certainpremises. That is my understanding of this Billand I would like someone to say whether my in-terpretation is right. If not, can anyone give abetter explanation?

Hon. D. K. DANS: This Bill deals withenforceability of gambling debts, nothing moreand nothing less. To take an absurd situation, Icould perhaps prescribe something and make someregulations. That would mean those games wouldnot be able to be pursued unless those other Actswere amended or regulations were made to allowit to happen. I refer to the Acts listed in theschedule, including the Police Act and the CasinoControl Act. It just could not happen that way.

Hon. P. H. Wells: Why could there not be pro-vision to exclude something that is already illegalunder the Police Act which is in the schedule?

Hon. D. K. DANS: If the member reads clause5 from the top he will see that it states-

Subject to the provisions of an Act speci-fied in the Schedule or to any prescribed pro-vision relating thereto, where in the courseand for the purposes of prescribed gaming orprescribed betting a person makes a lawfulbet with any other person the person makingthat bet-

That is all we are talking about. Where does themember want to go from there?

Hon. P. H . Wells: You make a lawful bet-The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. P. H.

Lockyer): Order! One at a time will make it mucheasier for those who are vitally interested in theBill, particularly me.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I do niot know which mat-ters are illegal under the Police Act, but I under-stand thimblerigging is illegal. Is it not possible forthe Minister to prescribe under this provision thatany bets incurred while playing that particulargame are redeemable at law? The act of playingthimblerig is illegal, but we are not dealing withthe illegal act. We are dealing with getting theamount of money won or lost as the result of a bet.It has nothing to do with the game;, it has nothingto do with whether the police stop the game or not.Let us say a person made a bet and the loss isbeing claimed. Is there anything to stop the Minis-ter prescribing that that type of action can comeunder this Bill although it is illegal under anotherAct?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Nothing, I suppose, exceptthe exercise of commonsense. I do not believe any-one in his wildest imagination would think anyMinister, no matter from what Government,

1943

1944 [COUNCIL]

would prescribe thimblerigging because it wouldstill be unlawful under the Police Act and theperson would not be able to recover any bet. NoMinister in his right mind would prescribethimblerigging, to use an example, when at thesame time the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices would have to be a party to that action tomake it lawful under the Police Act. That is noton; it could not happen.

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: I am getting a bitconfused. The way I read clause 5 it is almostuseless. It refers to Acts specified in the schedulesuch as the Totalisator Act which authorises gam-bling on racing. The Minister can prescribe gam-bling on racing. He referred to the pea andthimble trick and that is specifically made illegalunder the Police Act. The Minister cannot Pre-scribe it because this Bill says in clause 5,"Subject to the provisions of an Act specified inthe Schedule".

Hon. D. K. Dans: That is only talking aboutenforceability. I was using an absurd situation.No-one is going to prescribe those things.

Hon. G. C. MacKIN NON: That is why we aregetting confused.

Hon. D. K. Dans: I have to answer questionsand I am trying to give examples.

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: Unless a game isspecifically made legal in one of the Acts in theschedule the Minister cannot prescribe that game.If it is illegal under an Act listed in the scheduleand the Police Act makes certain it is illegal-andtwo-up will be illegal inside the 200-kilometrelimit-how can the Minister prescribe it, becausehe has to operate subject to the provisions of anAct specified in the schedule?

The Minister said the other day when Mr Lewisand I asked him about it that there was no wayunder the casino Act that he could allow two-up atthe Bunbury or Collie races. Now he is saying hecan prescribe it.

Hon. D. K, DANS: One gets asked some ex-treme questions; but everyone is entitled to askthem. I was trying to give an cxtreme answer to asituation that will never arise. Mr MiacKinnon hasbeen here long enough to know that. This has beenhanging around since 1977 and the Acts which arecausing the problem are I50 years old. It is a bloton our conscience that we have fooled around withthis kind of legislation for so long.

When one starts talking about Charles 11 andQueen Anne it makes WA look like a Crown col-ony, We are talking about enforceability. For in-stance, the Totalisator Act and the TotalisatorRegulation Act might prescribe that one cannotenforce a bet. What this Bill is doing in those

circumstances is enabling us to enforce a bet andit is as simple as that. In all the existing Acts thereare certain exclusions. This Bill will not make theparent Act or any other Act redundant.

We must have commonsense in debating thismatter. I can give extreme answers to extremequestions all night. We must go back to the inten-tion of the Bill which I outlined carefully in mysecond reading speech. I cannot go beyond that,but I have warned the Chamber that there areproblems in tidying up this matter;, the reasonbeing that the Acts we are trying to exclude are soold that the language in them has long since disap-.pea red f rom use. It( is a very d ifficult task.

There would be no member sitting in thisChamber tonight who would not know the inten-tion of the Bill, but the problem is getting it intosome sensible order.

With due deference to Mr Wells-I mentionedthe Salvation Army Citadel, but I should havementioned St Marys Cathedral-I know that no-one will ever get into that situation.

All we are looking at is the enforceability oflegally made bets-nothing more and nothing less.I used -some extreme examples, but unless theother Acts were changed considerably they simplywould not apply.

Clause 5 simply states that in the other Actsthere is a provision which says that one cannotenforce a bet, but under this Bill one can enforce abet.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I am sorry if my questionsin leading to the examples I gave mislead theMinister. I am trying to arrive at the power of theMinister in connection with the prescribed pro-vision.

As a result of the explanation the Minister gaveto this Chamber I understand the Minister will nothave the power in connection with the prescribedprovision, but that this power exists in other Acts.I expect that the Minister does not have any powerunder this clause to prescribe anything. However,prescribed provisions exist relating to other Acts.

Does the Minister have the power under thisprovision to exclude people who have previouslybeen charged for an offence of non-payment ofbets under the existing Acts? If a person has beenbefore the court for the recovery of bets it seemsdesirable to exclude that person from booking upfurther bets.

Does clause 5 give the Minister the power toprescribe anything or does it mean that he istaking over prescribed provisions which alreadyexist? If the Bill does give the Minister the powerto prescribe anything, will it exclude those people

1944

[Tuesday, 16 April 1985J 94

who have previously been before a court in respectof a belting offence?

Hon. D. K. DANS: Is the member saying thatthis Bill will become retrospective?

Hon. P. H. Wells: No, I will explain it again.

Hon. D. K. DANS: I am sorry, but I must bevery dense.

Hon. P. H. WELLS: I will take it step by step.If this Bill were to come into force and I took acredit bet at a race meeting or at a two-up gameand did not meet the debt, under clause 5 thebookmaker may sue me for non-payment and thecase would go before the court and would beregistered as an offence. If after three months Iwent back to the racecourse and again booked upbets and did not meet the debt the bookmakerwould sue me again for the recovery of the debt.Does the prescribed provision relating to this Billgive the Minister the power to say that a personwho has been charged several times-in otherwords he is a habitual gambler-is not allowed tobook up bets? Is there any provision in the Bill toexclude that person from the racecourse in a simi-lar manner as an alcoholic is excluded from anhotel?

Hon. D. K. DANS: We are dealing with a Blaimed mainly at the racing fraternity and theshort answer to Hon. Peter Wells's question is,"No". The Bill certainly does not allow the Minis-ter to prescribe a person or put some kind ofrestriction on him.

If a person was a continual offender the racingclub would warn him off the racecourse-thiswould occur with or without this Bill. Most race-courses have their own detectives and if a person iswarned off a course-I do not know if a personcan be warned off a course for booking upbets-he is warned off all courses not only inWestern Australia, but also in Australia. I sup-pose it would be difficult for him to be recognisedin Cairns! l am not talking about a $10 offence.

To use a hypothetical example, if I had a betwith Gordon Masters for $100 000-and that sortof bet is a regular occurrence these days-

Hon. G. E. Masters: With me it is not.

I-on. D. K. DANS: Mr Masters might be ableto bet that sort of money, but I could not and I donot think we would be so silly as to have such abet. However, if I did have such a bet with GordonMasters and I did not pay him and he took me tocourt and sued me for the recovery of the debt andpresumably I paid the debt in cash, it would ap-pear that Mr Masters or any bookmaker would bestupid to entertain me again. If he were to enter-tain me again, firstly I would have to re-establish

my credit rating and I do not know whether Icould do that.

Where this law operates in other States and theCommonwealth-I am not sure about SouthAustralia, but I think it would operate in thatState-the provision has not been used. It actsmore as a deterrent. Most of the people in thosepositions are people of standing in the communityand to be dragged before a court for a gamblingdebt is sufficient incentive to say, "If I do not havethe money,!I will not bet".

What has been happening here is that smartalecs from other parts of Australia, knowing fullwell there is no provision in this State, have driftedhere. As the Hon. Tom McNeil quite rightly saidthis evening, it was hinted in the paper recentlythat a punter had been here and run up a big debt.He was hopping on the plane to go to Bali for aholiday. That is the kind of thing we are trying toprevent. We are dealing with businessmen whopay a fairly hefty tax and who are entitled to somekind of protection.

To return to the member's question, this Hillwill not prescribe a person; in other words, there isnothing in this Bill that would allow me to say thata certain person was not allowed to bet with themember. Surely commonsense would prevail andthe bookmakers themselves, who form a close-knitcommunity, would say that such a person was abad risk. A bookmaker might say to another, "Ihad him last week. I would not take his bet".

Let us consider the other course. A punter whois a bad risk might book up a bet. The bookiemight not take him to court because he does notwant to go to court, but he might say, "Old FredSproggs over there, watch him. He welshed on melast week for $10 000". That seems a realisticfigure. The bookie would then suggest that if hecame knocking at another's door he should beturned down because he was a bad risk. Book-makers belong to an association and they do notwant that sort of person around. That may satisfythe question of the position of such a person.

I do not know what the position is with respectto alcoholics these days. There used to be a noticeprohibiting the supply of alcohol for inebriates,known as the "Dog Act". When I first came intothis Chamber members were debating the DogAct. I facetiously thought that they were referringto the one in respect of alcoholics, but it wasactually about dogs. That was some time ago now.In answer to Mr Wells' question, that is notenvisaged in this Bill.

Hon. NEIL OLIVER: I take the matter of theActs specified in the schedule and any prescribedprovision relating thereto a little further. If a

1945

1946 COUNCIL]

game is deleted from the prescribed provisions.where does the person taking the bets stand inrelation to a bad debt? Let us say, for example,that the schedule has been changed and no longeris poker prescribed. If that is removed from theschedule there will be problems. I put it to theMinister that when I think through clause 5 1 findit becomes extremely complicated, especially inanticipation of the way in which it can beadministered. I see a tremendous problem in theadministration of this clause. I will allow the Min-ister to answer that point, because I have only onefinal question to put to him after that.

Hon. D. K. DANS: It is strange that we arenearly a century behind the rest of the world inthis kind of legislation. None of the kinds ofexamples that have been put up has plagued any-onc in other places. The member has suggestedthat if I decided to chop out the provision in one ofthese Acts, and there was a bet-

H on. NeilI Oliver: A series of bets.

Hon. D. K. DANS: If there were a series ofbets, I ani informed that the person's rights wouldprevail. In other words, if at the time the bet wasmade the Act was in operation, all the provisionsprotecting the person making the bet would apply.

Hon. NEIL OLIVER: Finally, I make a pointin relation to the casino. I know that the casinolegislation is included in the schedule. That meansthat any game that is prescribed here and is ex-clusive to the casino under the Casino (BurswoodIsland) Agreement Act cannot be prescribed in-side the 200-kilometre radius of the casino. Thatwould mean that any of the games that are playedat the casino can be played outside the 200-kilo-metre zone and would be enforceable under theschedule to this Bill. They would become enforce-able outside the 200-kilometre zone, along withthe Totalisator Agency Board, racing and all thoseother things that are allowed within the 200-kilo-metres. I am sorry to labour it, but the thing thatconcerns me-

Hon. D. K. Dans: I answered this questionearlier tonight, before tea.

Hon. NEIL OLIVER: Let us consider a clubsimilar to the Toodyay club, which is inside the200-kilometre zone and therefore cannot be partof it. How does the Minister propose to administerthat 200-kilometre zone? At least with Albury-Wodonga there is a definable geographical featurewith Echuca, Moana, Tocumnwal and Barham, butwhat happens if one is at one end of the town andthe other at the other end or if the 200-kilometreboundary goes through the premises of the gam-bling parlour? The Minister previously told methat this 200-kilometre zone posed a problem to

him in that he did not know whether certaintowns, such as Collie, were in or out. Surely theMinister's advisers must have thought this clausethrough in relation to its effects on the casino Act.We are now talking about enforceable gamblingdebts. We have to define where they are made.Has the department considered how it is possibleto administer this clause, or will it be an adminis-trative nightmare?

Hon. D. K. DANS: It will be a very easy Act toadminister because in the first instance the CasinoControl Act does certain things. The member is alittle muddled to the extent that all we are talkingabout at the 200-kilometre range is two-up.Games generally played in the casino or deriva-tives of these games are excluded all over theState. A lot of games can still be played.

Hon. G. C. MacKinnon: Except bingo.Hon. D. K. DANS: Bingo is different

altogether. Bingo will not be played in the casino.We have settled that question. Kino will beplayed, which is a different game.

Hon. G. C. MacKinnon: It is a derivative ofbingo.

Hon. D. K. DANS: Yes, but we have settledthat question. I believe that anyone playing two-upon this side of the street When it was legal on theother side of the street would have enough sense tomove. That is not a problem. I would like MrOliver to understand that we are not dealing withplaying two-up every day of the week. We aredealing with a race club in the outback which hasone or two race meetings a year and which appliesfor a permit tO have a game after the last racewhich finishes at a certain time. If the club appliesit will be given a permit and that will be the end ofit. I do not see any conflict of interests there.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 6: Money or security lent for lawfulgaming or betting recoverable-

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: I refer the Ministerin charge of this Bill to another Bill. He willremember his colleague, I-on. Donald May, whointroduced the Door to Door (Sales) Act. Thatwas one of the early Acts dealing with consumerprotection. It was always said that some poor de-fenceless person could succumb to a door-to-doorsalesman selling encyclopaedias, saucepans orwhatever. Over the years we have built up a hostof protective legislation, and such a person is giventime to cool off.

The people going From door to door selling arereally quite honest citizens trying to make anhonest crust rather than going on unemploymentbenefits, particularly those who live in the country

1946

[Tuesday, 16 April 1985])94

areas; yet here we have a Bill which gives noprotection to the poor devil who gets sucked in. Heloses what be has in his pockets. He can makesome credit arrangements, whatever they mightbe. Do not tell me it is not possible because it is. Ican give factual cases involving not only one ortwo dollars but in some cases several thousanddollars. Before one knows where one is one hasmortgaged one's house. Every debt is collectable.There is no talk of any cooling-off period here, orany protection for the poor gullible gambler whomight be as sick as an alcoholic.

Hon. W. N. Stretch: There is more protection ifyou buy books.

Hon. 0. C. MacK INNON: One has more pro-tection if one buys encyclopaedias. Under this Billone has no protection.

Hon. W. N. Stretch: They can take your houseaway.

Hon. 0. C. MacK INNON: Is it reasonable thatgamblers be thrown to the wolves? Do not tell mebookmakers are not pretty shrewd fellows-ofcourse they are. I was on the inquiry which madethe recommendation that bookmakers should beallowed to recover their debts. However, I wasabsolutely staggered that the so-called sympath-etic Labor Party put something like this in theBill. it is evidence of the party's obdurate nature.It has given no consideration whatsoever to theconsumers in the gambling field, yet it has allowedall sorts of restrictions on any fellow who runs ashop. Small businessmen are now looking almostat a new set of laws. They call them the Fletcherlaws. I was in a shop the other day and I was toldthey were not interested in what I had to say; theywere interested in what Fletcher said.

People involved in gambling receive no con-sideration at all. They have to look after them-selves. If one mentions the principle of caveateniptor in regard to legitimate business, people gothrough the roof saying that is the dirty side ofcapitalism. Under this Bill the poor consumer hasno protection whatsoever. I would like the Minis-ter to tell me on what philosophical basis he thinksthis should operate.

Hon. D. K. DANS: There is a fairly simpleanswer to this, and I am surprised at Hon.Graham MacKinnon's comments, with all his longexperience in this Chamber and also as a Minister.There is nothing novel about this clause. All itdoes, for the purposes of this Bill, is to restate thecommon law.

Hon. 0. C. MacKinnon: Why did you not leavethat for the door-to-door sales?

Hon. D. K. DANS: The Door To Door (Sales)Act is not one of mine. We are debating the Bill

before the Chamber at present. Is the membergoing to suggest to me that we change the com-mon law?

Hon. G. C. MacKinnon: We are changing thecommon law; we are putting it in the Statute law.

Hon. D. K. DANS: All we are doing in this Billis stating the common law. I do not know whereone goes from there. There is nothing novel aboutit. I can say no more than that; that is all it does,nothing more and nothing less.

Hon. G, C. MacKINNON: When we bring upthe matter of protection of the ordinary citizen, allthe Minister does is shrug his shoulders. When wesuggest that ordinary shopkeepers ought to begiven protection with regard to people who comeinto their shops-

Hon. D. K. Dans: Do they not have protectionunder the common law, the same as everyone else?

Hon. 0. C. MacKINNON: No, because it hasbeen taken out of the common law and put in theStatute books. When people actually get caughtup in gambling it bugs me how the money theyhave worked for pours out of their pockets. Theyare not in their own houses where they can tell theperson to get out of the house, that they do notwant to buy the encyclopaedias or saucepans.They are in a gambling frenzy. All the colouredlights blaze in the casinos, and they are being fedfree liquor.

Hon. D. K. Dans: I have not seen anything inthe casino Bill which says they will get free liquor.

Several members interjected.Hon. D. K. Dans: Only if one is playing at the

tables.Hon. 0. C. MacK INNON: Absolute rubbish! I

was playing a one-armed bandit and I had a jollygood scotch. Under this Bill there is no protectionfor the poor devil. The woman who goes into ashop has no protection, and all the Minister can dois shrug his shoulders.

I was happy with allowing bookmakers to col-lect legitimate bets. This will get rid of the con-stant fear that people will not pay their gamblingdebts for very good reason.

Anyhow, it is obvious we are not going to getanywhere. I would point out this protection of thecitizen, the actual user of credit, has resulted inmore complicated laws. This is to the disadvantageof business, yet here no thought is given to anotheruser of credit. He is given no consideration what-soever.

Clause put and passed.Clause 7 put and passed.Schedule put and passed.

1947

1948 [COUNCIL]

Title-Hon. P. H. WELLS: Despite what the Minister

claims-that this is the last piece of this type oflegislation-I would have thought it was the bestexample of legislation one cannot understand.

The Minister says there has been a lot of diffi-culty. There has been plenty of time since 1977 tohave found the correct words. For the first time weare taking away from the Parliament the right todecide whether we are consciously to take what iscurrently unlawful and make it lawful. Now it isto be done by regulation, which this Bill allows tobe prescribed. I think the Bill should be sent backto the Minister to be redrafted, and I urge mem-bers to vote against it.

Title put and passed.

ReportBill reported, without amendment, and the re-

port adopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon. D. K.Dants (Minister for Racing and Gaming), andtransmitted to the Assembly.

COMMERCIAL TENANCY (RETAIL SHOPS)AGREEMENTS BILL

Receipt and First ReadingBill received from the Assembly; and, on motion

by Hon. Peter Dowding (Minister for Employ-ment and Training), read a first time.

Second ReadingHON. PETER DOWDING (North-Minister

for Employment and Training) [8.21 p.m.1: Imove-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is the culmination of concerted efforts bythe Government and industry groups involved inthis issue, to find a genuine workable solution tothe complex and far-reaching issues involved incommercial tenancy agreements.

When this Government came to office in 198 3 anumber of serious and unresolved conflicts existedbetween retail shop owners and tenants regardingcertain lease provisions and commercial practiceswhich were seen to work against the commercialinterests of the small business sector in WesternAustralia.

The Government's election commitment was toresolve these issues in order to ensure a stable andsecure base for small business growth and develop-ment.

The Government's commitment specified thatan independent inquiry would be held to deter-mine the need for legislation in this area. At theSame time the Government indicated itspreference for non-legislative solutions if that werepossible.

I n October 1983 an independent barrister, MrNigel Clarke,. was commissioned to conduct theinquiry into commercial tenancy agreements.Clarke's work was most thorough and his contri-bution to the solution of the problems is a signifi-cant one.

The report of Clarke's inquiry was released on29 February 1984, coincidently with the launch ofthe Small Business Development Corporation.

Clarke's report, in essence, suggested legislationas the only long-term solution. He then went on tomake some 13 specific recommendations.

Under the chairmanship of the Small BusinessDevelopment Corporation, the retail liaison com-mittee then held an extensive round of meetings todiscuss Clarke's recommendations and determinethose areas where industry consensus was possible.

It is interesting to note that there is in factfundamental consensus on the issues raised byClarke and these were identified by the retailliaison committee and have formed the basis of theGovernment's action in this matter.

As a result of the inquiry and the industry groupdeliberations co-ordinated by the Small BusinessDevelopment Corporation, the Government de-cided, on the weight of overwhelming evidence,that to legislate was the only real means of achiev-ing a lasting solution.

Of course, other States have experienced similarproblems, and in fact the Queensland Parliamentproclaimed a Retail Shop Leases Act on 12 March1984. This Act and its operation have been used as

a guide throughout in the Government's deliber-ations.

At this time, the South Australian Parliamenthas before it similar legislation, and the VictorianParliament is currently assessing the results of aparliamentary committee which also considerslegislation.

This Bill is framed in such a way as to ensurethat the problems created by lack of awareness onthe part of tenants are eliminated. It is notintended that the Bill in any way interfere with-market forces at play in thc industry.

Consultation with involved industry groupscontinued up to and during the drafting of the Bill,and advance copies of the Bill were distributed tosix business organisations involved in the retailindustry and to the Law Society. As a result of

1948

[Tuesday, 16 Apr1 1985])94

input from those organisations the Hill was furtherrefined.

I now turn to the main features of the Bill.

It is intended to cover all but major retail shops,plus all similar tenancies in shopping centres. It isnot intended that the provisions of this Bill shouldbe retrospective. There shall, however, be the fa-cility to refer to a mediator, disputes on leasesentered into prior to the date on which this Billbecomes law.

An innovative feature of this Bill, and one whichhas evinced unanimous support, is the introductionof a disclosure statement which will contain a fulldisclosure of all material agreements made duringnegotiation and essential features not included inthe lease. It is intended also to ensure that in thedocumentation appears a provision, in thestrongest possible terms, that professional adviceshould be sought, prior to entering into the agree-ment. To this end all documentation is to be in thehands of tenants seven days prior to signing. Inthis way tenants will have every opportunity poss-ible to understand the often complex agreementsinto which they are entering.

With respect to turnover-based rent, the Billspecifies in detail a number of items which are tobe excluded from turnover. Once again tenantsshall have full disclosure of formulae used to de-termine the rental base prior to signing any agree-ment. Turnover-based rent must be requested, inwriting, by the tenant, prior to it forming the basisfor rent determination.

Unless turnover-based rent is used, tenants willnot be required to furnish turnover figures to thelandlord. Key money and goodwill payments willbe outlawed.

The basis of formula on which rent reviews areto be calculated is to be included in lease docu-mentation. Where a dispute arises, it shall be de-termined using licensed valuers and, if necessary,will be finally resolved by the tribunal.

Full disclosure of all variable outgoings and ap-portionment formulae are required to be a part oflease documentation.

It is intended that a tenant shall be given animplied option to extend his lease period to a mini-mum five-year period. This measure will give thesmall business tenant the initial security necessaryto establish his or her business.

The establishment of an arbitration system todetermine disputes is seen as a central figure ofthis Bill. To this end, the mechanism of the Com-mercial Tribunal is seen to provide the appropriatemedium for this activity. The system uses a two-tiered approach; that is, the commercial registrar,

being legally qualified, is appropriately vestedwith the function of mediator.

Where mediation is not possible, disputes willpass to the Commercial Tribunal for arbitration.The Commercial Tribunal will draw from a panelof individuals representative of the interests ofboth parties in dispute.

This process fits neatly into the CommercialTribunal functions, and will provide the necessaryquick and cost-effective mechanism for disputeresolution.

It is appropriate to note that to this time, aftersome three months of operation of the Queenslandlegislation, some four mediations have takenplace, all amicably resolved, and without need forreference to arbitration.

The Act in operation will be closely monitoredto ensure it continues to fulfil the needs of indus-try groups, and in any event it has review pro-visions included to cause a complete review afterf iv years.

Explanatory material is to be widely available,and industry groups, which await anxiously thepassage of this Bill, will assist greatly in the dis-semination of this information.

The Government sees this Bill as a furthermeasure in its programme of worthwhile supportto small business. As such the Bill will provide afirm basis on which commercial tenancy agree-ments may be made and will provide a basis forharmony essential to the growth of this sector.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon. V. i.Ferry.

TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILLReceipt and First Reading

Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motionby Hon. Peter Dowding (Minister for Employ-ment and Training), read a first time.


for Employment and Training) [8.30 p.m.]: Imove-


The transport industry is a dynamic force thatmust be sufficiently flexible to meet the ever-changing needs of, the world of business and com-merce. It is equally important that the Govern-ment's transport policy and requirements are alsoappropriate to meet the needs of the State, thetransport user, and the industry.

1949

1950 [COUNCIL)U

This Bill proposes a number of amendments tothe Transport Act. The major changes aredesigned to strengthen or clarify the Com-missioner of Transport's authority inadministering the Staies transport policy, whileothers are to accommodate slight changes of ter-minology. or to close loopholes which have beendiscovered and are being exploited by an increas-ing number of operators. All of the amendmentshave the aim of facilitating the efficient operationof the Government's transport policy and improv-ing transport services generally for the benefit ofusers and operators alike.

While I will explain the proposed amendmentsin greater detail at a later stage, it is appropriatethat at this time I give a broad outline of theproposals for the information of honourable mem-bers.

One of the more important amendments willmore accurately reflect the commissioner's role inmonitoring and maintaining an overview oftransport services, and ensuring the reasonabletransport needs of users are met. This is in con-trast to his former prime functions which were of aregulatory and en forcement nature.

To date the Act has been restrictive in that itpermitted the commissioner to call tenders forroad services, but not for other modes of transportsuch as air services, nor did it permit himn to callfor applications or proposals to operate services.These restrictions have inhibited the com-missioner's actions, and meant that the most effec-tive methods of implementing new transport ser-vices are more difficult to employ.

As it stands, the principal Act permits the Min-ister For Transport to grant exemptions fromlicensing under the Act, but not to revoke exemp-tions already made; likewise the Act limits thegranting of exemptions to classes of vehicles butnot to the purposes for which the vehicle is beingused. The amendments proposed will address andrectify both anomalies.

Further amendments relate to the licensing oflong distance coaches. My colleague, the Ministerfor Transport, has had many views expressed tohim on the pros and cons of the method of oper-ation of long distance coaches. One school ofthought favours the system where relief drivers arestationed at strategic points along the route, whilstothers favour the second driver being carried onthe bus, and resting in a curtained-off area in therear. Although I am aware the -Minister does nothave strong views favouring one system over theother, he does see that in certain circumstances itmay be advantageous and in the public interest torequire operators to station their drivers at set

points along the route. Conversely, in other cir-cumstances it may be more realistic to use thetwo-driver system with both operators travelling inthe coach. It is proposed that the principal Act beamended to enable the Commissioner of Transportto condition licences requiring drivers to bestationed along the route, but this will be a dis-cretionary power that will be used as appropriatedepending on the circumstances of individualcases.

For many years farmers have enjoyed exemp-tions from the licensing provisions of theTransport Act, but it has been found that somecarriers and others have joined forces in an en-deavour to thwart the intent of such exemptions.Amendments are proposed that will close suchloopholes; however, I would stress that such actionwill not alter the rights and privileges currentlyenjoyed by farmers, including bona fide sharefarmers under the present exemptions.

Another proposal is to amend that section of theprincipal Act which relates to the number of hoursan operator may drive a truck. It is designed toovercome a problem that has recently come tolight, wherein the interpretation of this section bysome employers has been used to deprive drivers ofwages morally due to them. I am sure honourablemembers will agree that the present provisions ofthe Act were not designed and should not be usedto deprive drivers of wages properly due to them. 1would add that it is understood that very few truckowners have used the Act in this way, but never-theless it requires appropriate action to correct thesituation.

As I mentioned earlier, the proposed amend-ments in this Bill are designed in the main toprovide for easier implementation of the Govern-ment's transport policy. Other amendments willclose certain loopholes that are being exploited bya minority of operators, clarify certain termin-ology to make the intent of the principal Act muchclearer, and increase penalties to a more realisticcurrent-day value.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensurethe State is able to implement its transport policyin the most efficient and resources-effective man-ner, with sufficient flexibility to meet the ever-changing demands placed on it. I am sure honour-able members will agree that these are mostworthwhile aims.

I would also take this opportunity to advisehonourable members of the Government's pro-posal to amalgamate the functions of the office ofthe Co-ordinator General of Transport, and theTransport Commission. Whilst I will not delveinto the reasons behind this move at this time,

1950

[Tuesday, 16 April 1985] 15

suffice it to say that the newly formed Departmentof Transport-which will result from thismerger-will provide a much stronger base fortransport administration and policy developmentin the State in future.

A Bill to provide for the proposed amalga-mation will be presented to the House in duecourse. In the interim the Bill now before theHouse to amend the Transport Act is considerednecessary to ensure the proper functioning of ac-tivities that will continue under the new depart-men t.


Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon. D. J.Wordsworth.

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENTBILL

Receipt and First Reading

Bill received from the Assembly; and, on moti onby Hon. J. M. Berinson (Attorney General), reada first time.

Second ReadingHON. J. M. BERINSON (North Central

Metropolitan-Attorney General) [8.36 p.m.]: Imove-


The Bill proposes to reduce land tax assessments,including metropolitan region improvement tax,for the 1985-86 financial year by 10 per cent.

It is also proposed that penalties for late pay-ment of tax be reduced from 10 per cent to fiveper cent, and that the period for payment be ex-tended from 30 days to 45 days.

It is estimated that the proposed concessionswill benefit over 100 000 land tax payers and willcost about $7 million, $6 million for land tax andS I million for the improvement tax.

The proposed reductions are interim measurespending the completion of the Government's full-scale review of the land tax system. They will havethe effect of keeping the increase in revenue fromthe taxes to about 5.9 per cent, which is broadly inline with the projected inflation rate.

The Government recognises that there has beena disproportionately high increase in the burden ofland tax as compared with other forms of Statetaxation and this reflects a major problem in-herent in the present system.

When land valuation is increased, even if onlymoderately, there is a magnified effect on the taxpayable as a result of the progressive tax scale,which has remained unchanged since 1968.

As a result, the Government has been reviewingthe operation of the land tax system with a view toeliminating inequities and reducing its impact.Submissions have been invited from interested or-ganisations, but it has not been possible to com-plete the current review in time for the issuing ofland tax assessments for the 1985-86 financialyear.

It will take some considerable time to addressthe variety of issues arising from the submissionsreceived. The fundamental problems associatedwith the tax schedule itself also need to beaddressed.

The measure proposed by the Bill will thereforeprovide relief, pending completion of the abovereview.

Clauses 2 and 3 effect the 10 per cent reductionin the amount of tax payable. Clause 4 extends theperiod for payment of the tax to 45 days. Clause 5reduces the penalty for late payment by five percent.

The proposed changes apply automatically tothe metropolitan region improvement tax by virtueof section 41 of the Act.

I commend the Bill to the House.Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon. G. E.

Masters (Leader of the Opposition).

BILLS (2): RETURNEDI . Financial Institutions Duty Act (Revival

of section 76) Bill.2. Race Meetings (Two-up Gaming) Bill.

Bills returned from the Assembly withoutamendment.

RURAL RECONSTRUCTION AND RURALADJUSTMENT SCHEMES AMENDMENT

GILLReceipt and First Reading

Bill received from the Assembly; and, on motionby Hon. D. K. Dans (Leader of the House), read afirst time.

Second ReadingHON. D. K. DANS (South Metropoli-

tan-Leader of the House) [8.41 p.m.]: I move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is fourfold-(1) To reconstitute the Rural Adjustment

Authority as the Rural Adjustment andFinance Corporation of WesternAustralia;

(2) to provide in the form of the new corpor-ation a more suitable vehicle for the

1951

1952 [COUNCIL]

overall management of schemes of assist-ance to the rural sector;

(3) to incorporate the provisions of the RuralIndustries Assistance Act 1975-80 intothe Rural Adjustment and Rural Recon-struction Schemes Act; and

(4) to facilitate the transfer of existing loansto farmers made under the Governmentagency section of the Rural and Indus-tries Bank Act to the corporation.

By far the most important of these aims is tocreate a corporation with the expertise, flexibilityand powers necessary to meet the needs of theindustry and the effective co-ordination of allforms of financial assistance existent or to beinitiated.

With this in mind, the Bill allows for a corpor-ation membership of five, two of whom shall havewide experience in rural industry or financial mat-ters or possess other special qualifications appro-priate to the function of the corporation.

The chairman shall have wide experience infinancial matters relevant to rural industry and ifnecessary may be appointed on a full-time basis tobecome chief executive officer as well as chair-man. The remaining two members will be Govern-ment officers-one from the Department ofTreasury and one from the Department ofAgriculture.

The chairman's appointment will be for a periodof five years while other members will hold officefor three years. Any or all may be re-appointed.There is provision for the corporation to utiliseaccumulated funds in the various trust accountsunder its administration and also power to borrowin order to finance schemes of assistance to therural sector.

In these ways will be created a rural financebody whose effectiveness will be noticeablyenhanced and which will be in a position tomarshall and employ available funds for the ben-efit of agriculture.

Incorporation into this Act of the Rural Indus-tries Assistance Act is a matter of legislativehousekeeping. There are no changes to the pro-visions of the latter Act.

The matter of consolidating all Governmentlending to farmers into one management isaddressed in the Sill. The benefits of borrowershaving to deal with only one lender are as obviousas they are considerable.

Other changes incorporated in the Sill are of ageneral nature. The more important of these arethe formulation of the corporation's ability to hold

property and bringing accounting and audit re-quirements into line with Government policy.

I commend the Bill to the House.Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon. C. J.

Bell.

ACTS AMENDMENT (ENVIRONMENTALLEGISLATION) BILL

Receipt and First ReadingBill received from the Assembly; and, on motion

by Hon. J. M. Berinson (Attorney General), reada first time.

Second ReadingHON. J1. M. BERINSON (North Central

Metropolitan-Attorney General) [8.44 p.m.]: Imove-

That the Hill be now read a second time.This Bill proposes amendments to the Clean AirAct 1964, the Mines Regulations Act 1946 andNoise Abatement Act 1972.

These amendments are part of the Govern-ment's announced rationalisation ofresponsibilities for occupational health matters.With the establishment of the OccupationalHealth, Safety and Welfare Commission, thefunctions of the occupational health division of theHealth Department of WA will no longer be partof that department, and as a consequence the en-vironmental components of its air and noise con-trol responsibilities will be transferred to the Min-ister for the Environment.

With the transfer of responsibility to the Minis-ter, it is important that there is a direct link withthe skilled and representative advisory group. It isproposed to establish in each of the Clean Air Actand Noise Abatement Act an advisory committeeto assist the Minister in carrying out his functionsunder the Acts.

The advisory committees will replace the pre-vious Air Pollution Control Council and ScientificAdvisory Committee under the Clean Air Act andNoise and Vibration Control Council and NoiseAbatement Advisory Committee under the NoiseAbatement Act. The functions of the two councilswill be transferred to the Minister who will beadvised by the representative committees.

The membership of the two committees hasbeen broadened to include representation from theConservation Council of Western Australia, re-tains the representation of the Confederation ofWestern Australian Industry and the Trades andLabor Council and reduces the number of Govern-ment department representatives.


1952


Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon. G. E.Masters (Leader of the Opposition).

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FORADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS:

ADOPTION OF RULESCouncil's Resolution: Assembby's ConcurrenceMessage from the Assembly received and read

notifying that it had concurred in the Council'sresolution.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ANDASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Bill introduced, on motion by Hon. PeterDowding (Minister for Industrial Relations), andread a first time.


for Industrial Relations) [8.47 p.m-]: I move-


The current workers' compensation legislation inthis State has its origin in the judicial inquiryconducted by Hon, B. J. Dunn, OBE in 1978.

As a result of this inquiry, a Bill was introducedinto Parliament in late 1981. After substantialamendment, particularly at the instigation of HisHonor Mr Justice Howard Olney, then a memberof this Council, the Workers' Compensation andAssistance Act 1981 was passed and came intooperation on 3 May 1982.

At the time the Act was passed, an undertakingwas made to review the operation of the Act afterit had been in operation for one year. This Govern-ment honoured that undertaking and commenceda comprehensive review of the Act in May 1983.

In the course of the review, all organisationswhich had previously expressed an interest in theworkers' compensation area were invited to par-ticipate and a substantial number of submissionswere received as a result. These varied in extentfrom the single-issue cost aspects which cause con-cern to small business to comprehensive evalu-ations of the total workers' compensation scene bylarger firms and umbrella organisations.

All submissions received were reviewed by theWorkers' Assistance Commission and the com-mission's recommendations were submitted to thethen Minister. As the Government had establishedthe Tripartite Labour Consultative Council, astatutory body, to review all legislation in the in-dustrial relations field, the commission'srecommendations were referred to the council toenable a further assessment and identification ofthose areas where consensus existed.

462)

The Bill before the House comprisessubstantially those amendments which wereunanimously endorsed by the Tripartite LabourConsultative Council and therefore enjoy thesupport of the major interest groups in theworkers' compensation field. There are, in ad-dition, a small number of amendments which re-flect Government policy in this area.

The amendments fall into three broadcategories: those which are purely administrativearnd are designed to Facilitate the operations of theAct; those which benefit both workers and em-ployers:, and those which have been included dueto special circumstances.

The administrative amendments in the Bill arecontained in clauses I to 3, 17. 22, 24 to 27, and29 to 40.

Among the more significant of these clauses arethose which ensure both the Registrar and DeputyRegistrar of the Workers' Compensation Boardhave the power to conduct pretrial conferencesand preliminary hearings. This will facilitate thedetermination of claims and add to the successalready achieved by the board in providing aresolution of disputes with the minimum of delay.

The amendments also remove certain anomalieswhich make it extremely difficult in practice toprosecute an employer who fails to obtain a policyof insurance as required by the Act. The Bill pro-vides that a complaint can be lodged at any timewithin two years from the date the alleged offenceoccurred. Failure to produce a policy of insurancein force at the specified date when requested to doso in writing will constitute prima facie evidencethat the employer was uninsured.

This amendment will assist the Workers' Assist-ance Commission in its inspectorial function andfacilitate a reduction in the cost of all employersresulting From the currently increasing number ofclaims by injured workers on the uninsured Fundwhere their employer has not carried out his re-sponsibility under the Act and obtained an in-surance policy.

Direct benefits to both workers and employersare provided for in clauses 4 to 9, 13 to 16, 18, 20,21, 23, 28 and 41 to 44.

The proposed amendment to section 74 of theAct will provide a significant improvement in thesituation of both workers and employers. Underthe Act members will be aware that lengthy delaysin the payment of compensation can occur when aworker suffers a disability or a recurrence of anold disability which results in a dispute betweeninsurers as to which is liable to indemnify theemployer. This amendment will provide that theinsurer at the time of the latest disability is liable

1953

1954 [COUJNCI L]

to indemnify the employer until the Workers'Compensation Board has determined which in-surer is liable or the extent of joint liability. Theamendment conforms with the existing provisionwhich deals with employers as to liability wherethere is no dispute as to the workers' entitlement.

The industrial diseases medical panel is cur-rently restricted in the area in which it can diag-nose. This amendment extends the scope of thepanel to enable it to determine whether a worker issuffering from lung cancer associated with work-ing with asbestos, in addition to its existing powerto determine pneumoconiosis or mesothelioma .This provision will enable workers who are theunfortunate victims of lung cancer resulting fromemployment in the asbestos industry to have theircondition appropriately determined by the panel.

The Bill also makes some appropriate ad-justments to the range of individuals who mayclaim compensation under the Act. As a result ofa submission on behalf of jockeys and apprenticejockeys and discussions with the WesternAustralian Turf Club, any jockey riding in a raceconducted by a racing club registered with theWA Turf Club, or carrying out his usual duties fora trainer licensed by the WA Turf Club is deemedto be a worker within the meaning of the Act. TheWA Turf Club is likewise deemed to be the em-ployer.

As a result of proposals made by the PublicService Board, persons holding judicial or otherStatutory offices who are not currently deemed tobe workers will be deemed to be workers employedby the Crown. This is consistent with provisionsexisting in other States.

A major area of concern on benefits relates tothe situation of working directors and their de-pendants. Working directors by their position havetwo clearly defined roles-as a director with obli-gations and as a worker with entitlements. In thepast many working directors have ignored the firstaspect but claimed entitlement when injured. Thisresult is an unfair charge against all employers.This is obviously inequitable and the proposedamendment removes entitlement for the workingdirector and his dependants unless theresponsiblity of obtaining a policy of insurance hasbeen fulfilled.

I turn now to a special series of amendmentsrelating to noise-induced hearing loss. During thetripartite discussions preceding the drafting of thepresent Act, the former Government gave anundertaking to introduce lump-sum compensationfor noise-induced hearing loss on a similar basis tothat existing in other States. The inclusion of suit-able provision in the Act for this type of compen-

sation was deferred in order to permit examinationof the issue by a special tripartite working partyspecifically appointed for this purpose.

The Government now intends to honour thecommitment of the former Government byintroducing a provision in the Act for compen-sation for noise-induced hearing loss. The amend-ments are substantially based on therecommendations made by the tripartite workingparty to the former Government.

The position adopted by that body provided forlump-sum payment based on the existing secondschedule entitlement where loss of hearing did notresult in incapacity for work. The consensus of therecommendations made by the working party in-eluded-

pre- and post-employment aud iometrictesting with confidentiality for theworker;

entitlement to compensation for work-related hearing loss to be prospectivefrom the date of proclamation of theamendments; and

a discount of 10 per cent to be applied toany measured hearing loss with thediscounted figure to apply from the baselevel set by the First testing.

The Government has accepted the above pro-posals, with the modification that instead of adiscount of 10 per cent a threshold of similar mag-nitude will apply, before which no compensationwill be payable. Once a worker's loss of hearingexceeds 10 per cent, the whole of his hearing losswill be compensable.

In order to protect employers from undue ad-ministrative costs, the Bill precludes workers fromlodging claims for this type of compensation atexcessively frequent intervals.

The Government believes that the provision ofcompensation for noise-induced hearing loss basedgenerally on the consensus recommendationsmade by the working party has the support of allmajor interest groups and will overcome a signifi-cant omission in workers' compensation legislationin this State.

The Bill before the House fulfils the Govern-ment's commitment to review the Workers' Com-pensation and Assistance Act and reflects a spiritof consensus rather than confrontation.


Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon. G. E.Masters (Leader of the Opposition).

1954


ACTS AMENDMENT (GAMING ANDRELATED PROVISIONS) DILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 April.

lON. G. E. MASTERS (West-Leader of theOpposition) [8.58 p.m.]: The Bill before theHouse is consequential on the previous Bill withwhich we dealt at some length, so I do not proposeto go into great depth in debating it because theMinister has already said that the Acts proposedto be repealed are very difficult to understand andgo back to the days of Their Majesties, KingCharles I, and further back to King William IV. Ido not really expect the Minister to explain to theHouse in detail the wording of that legislation. Itis interesting to read the title of the Bill, and Iquote-

A BILLFOR

AN ACT to clarify the effect in the Stateof, and to repeal, certain provisions of theStatutes of the Realm and Acts relating togaming and wagering and matters incidentalthereto...

I draw attention of the House to the words, "AnAct to clarify the effect in the State. ..

In relation to the debate that took place earlierin the evening on the other Bill introduced by theGovernment, this is anything but a clarifying Billand I do think that in years to come people wholook at the Bills we have dealt with tonight willfind them as mysterious as we find these outdatedStatutes we arc now proposing to repeal. Changesare to be made to the Police Act and the BettingControl Act which again are consequential. Thereare a number of changes to the Casino ControlAct. I cannot recall when that Bill was introducedin the House, but it seems that as an Act it hascome back for amendment regularly over the pastfew weeks. Nevertheless, the changes are conse-quential to the changes that have taken place overrecent times, and to the amendments we havepassed tonight.

I do not think the Opposition has any reason tooppose the legislation and I would not considerasking the Minister to explain in detail the Actswe are repealing.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee, etc.Bill passed through Committee without debate,

reported without amendment, and the reportadopted.

Third ReadingBill read a third time, on motion by Hon. D. K.

Dans (Minister for Racing and Gaming), andtransmitted to the Assembly.

ABORIGINAL LAND BILL

Second Reading: Defeated

Debate resumed from 2 April.HON. N. F. MOORE (Lower North) [9.02

p.m.]: The Aboriginal Land Bill 1985 is perhapsthe most significant Bill to come before the House,certainly during my time in Parliament. It must beremembered that this obnoxious Bill representsthe Government's bottom line in the land rightsdebate.

[I represents the minimum position of the BurkeGovernment on the question of Aboriginal landrights. Mr Burke repeatedly said during thedrafting period of this legislation that he wasseeking a Bill that would be acceptable to theLegislative Council. A Bill has been drafted whichhe considers meets that objective; in other words itis his bottom line with respect to this matter.Therefore, we must see the Bill in the light of itsbeing the beginning of the Government's landrights programme and not the end of it. My atti-tude to the Bill is totally justified because MrBurke has been prepared to compromise his initialstand on land rights with the sole aim of havingthe legislation passed, and once the legislativebasis has been established he will go the wholehog.

This legislation, which seeks as its primary aimto have the Parliament of Western Australia ac-cept the principle of Aboriginal land rights, willbecome the springboard for subordinate legislationwhich will go a long way towards achieving theaims of the Labor Government on this subject. Iam justified in my argument that this is just thebeginning when we consider some of the com-ments made by Labor Party officials on the sub-ject.

I quote from the Daily1984 from a letter to theassistant State secretaryCowdell. He said-

News of I I Octobereditor written by theof the ALP, John

While Cabinet's statement only goes partway towards the ideals as set out in our plat-form, it can nevertheless be seen as a step inthe right direction.

We do not expect all our ideals to beachieved immediately.

That statement is from a letter written by MrCowdell and, therefore, he has not beenmisquoted. He clearly points out that this legis-

1955

1956 [COUNCIL]

lation is just the beginning of what the ALP has inmind for land rights and this is certainly not theend of the matter.

Mr Burke has constantly raised the spectre ofthe Commonwealth Government's potential actionif this legislation is defeated. I suggest that thefuture of Western Australia is equally uncertain ifthe Bill is passed. It does not matter much howappealingly or how often Mr Burke asks thepeople of Western Australia to trust him on theSubject of land rights. We have seen him appear-ing on television at great expense to the WesternAustralian taxpayer trying to impress upon peoplethat they should trust him.

It ultimately comes down to the ambitions ofthe Labor Party in toto on land rights. The am-bitions of the Labor Party, which I suggest are theambitions of the Premier, are clearly outlined inthe ALP platform, both at Federal and Statelevels. The Federal platform is probably more ap-propriate in this debate because we know that theultimate situation with regard to the Labor Party'sactivities rests with the Federal platform. TheState platform is subordinate to the Federal plat-form.

It is important that we know what is containedin the Federal platform of the ALP on the subjectof land rights. I want members of the House torealise that the Federal platform was determinedat the Federal conference last year and Mr Burkewas a delegate from Western Australia to thatconference. As a delegate from Western Australiahe supported the platform of the ALP on landrights. I quote from that platform, which is theultimate position of the Labor Party in Australiaon the question of land rights. Let us make nomistake about that; it is not what we hear MrBurke telling us on television; it is not what we seein Labor Party advertisements; it is not what iscontained in the Hill.

Hon. Peter Dowding- You will be getting to theBill in due course, I suppose.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. P. H.Lockyar): I remind members on both sides of theHouse that I will not tolerate interjections of anykind while I am in the Chair. That applies to allmembers, including Ministers of the Crown.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: The Government'sposition is bound by the Labor Party's Federalplatform and I advise the House, by quoting fromthe 1984 platform of the Federal Labor Party,exactly what is its position-

A Labor Government will-LAND RIGHTS1, Grant land rights and compensation

to Aboriginal and Islander com-munities, using the principles andrecommendations of the AboriginalLand Rights Commission(Woodward Report) as a basis forlegislation, subject to a continuingreview.

The Woodward report was set up by the WhitlamGovernment and formed the basis of the NorthernTerritory legislation. It is interesting in the con-text of this debate to know that the Labor Party atthe time was strongly opposed to the legislation ofthe Fraser Government because it was consideredtoo soft. The Government is now saying it will bemoderate and do the right thing in this matter.Paragraph 2 states the following-

2. Ensure that Aboriginal and Islanderpeople in each state or territoryhave access to land grants heldunder secure title in accordancewith The Woodward principles byseeking complementary state or ter-ritory legislation and where this isnot introduced use Commonwealthconstitutional powers and legislationto achieve these objectives.

Once again t interpolate to indicate that there issome doubt as to whether the Commonwealth hasconstitutional powers but clearly the FederalGovernment intends to have its way if it can andthat is clearly indicated in this platform.

I quote from paragraph 6 of the platform be-cause it indicates a complete extension of whatthis argument is all about. It takes the matterbeyond the question of land rights and to the ulti-mate ambition of certain people in this issue. Itreads as follows-

6. Fully investigate the principle of aTreaty of Commitment asnegotiated on other continents to setout the legal and cultural relation-ships between the Aboriginal andIslander peoples and the widerAustralian community.

The Makarrata is not dead, as some people wouldhave us believe; the Makarrata. is part of the Fed-eral ALP's platform which, as I have said, is bind-ing on the Labor Party. 'That is the Labor Party'sultimate position: Land rights based on the North-ern Territory model for the whole of Australia;and the Makarrata at the end of the track.

But let us look at the State ALP platform, be-cause it illustrates what the State ALP thought atits last conference, held last year. I indicate for thebenefit of Mr Hetherington that this is the latest

1956


edition. Under "D: Land Rights", which is part ofthe ALP's Aboriginal platform, we find the fol-lowing-

0 LAND RIGHTS

Labor asserts that-

it is committed to the granting ofland rights to Aborigines and Islandersand believes that the principles andrecommendations of the AboriginalLand Rights Commission (WoodwardReport) should form a pattern for legis-lation.

Accordingly, a Labor Governmentwill-

13. Introduce legislation to apply toWestern Australia provisions simi-lar to those of the Northern Terri-tory Aboriginal Land Rights Billinitiated by the Federal LaborParty.

They even claim credit for the Northern Territorymodel, a model which Mr Burke says is not ac-ceptable. It is the basis of the ALP's platform atboth State and Federal level.

It is quite clear what the Labor Party's ultimateambition with land rights really is. Quite clearlywhat is contained in this Bill does not comply withall aspects of Labor's platform. I might say that itgoes remarkably close to doing so when we look atthe specifics, but I accept that there are still someareas of conflict between the Bill and Labor's plat-form.

I come back to my initial point: This is thebeginning of the ALP's programme for landrights, not the end of it. It is as I said in my initialcomments: The State Labor Party's bottom line onland rights legislation is just the beginning of landrights in Western Australia. While some membersof the Labor Party would be very happy for thislegislation to be defeated, the Government is veryanxious for it to be passed, because it would pro-vide the basis for further Government action inthis area. This further action would fulfil theA LP's platform on land rights.

I wonder whether at this moment the LaborParty's Bill would have contained what it does hadthe Legislative Council not been controlled by thenan-Labor parties. Mr Burke has said constantlythat he has amended his attitude on land rights inthe hope that he can get the Bill through theLegislative Council.

Regardless of whether it is the bottom line orjust the beginning of land rights, the Bill itself is adiabolical document. It is totally unacceptable to

me. A detailed evaluation of it has led me clearlyto that conclusion.

The title of the Bill is Aboriginal Land Bill.This to me is the most obnoxious part of the legis-lation-the actual title of it. It is blatantly andobviously racist.

Let us imagine the consequences of this legis-lation having been introduced under another title,perhaps the "Non-Aboriginal Land Bill" or the"White Australian Land Bill". Let us assume thateverything else in the Bill was exactly the sameexcept that whenever "Aboriginal" was used inthis Bill the wording was changed to "non-Abor-iginal" or "White Australian".

What would be the reaction of the communityand particularly the Labor Party if we hadintroduced such a piece of legislation? Therewould have been screams of "racism" and"discrimination". The unions would have been onstrike. The newspapers would have been indig-nant. The community would have been up in armsabout this dreadful piece of legislation, which wastotally and clearly racist because it discriminatedagainst one race of people.

The legislation before us does exactly that: Itdiscriminates in favour of one racial group. Byextension it must discriminate against all otherracial groups. Racism does not just mean discrimi-nation against black people. Regrettably, discrimi-nation against black people in many parts of theworld has led some people to assume this, but it isnot restricted in that way and it is not a strict oradequate definition of what racism means. Racismmeans discrimination against any race of peopleon the basis of their race. In this case it is dis-crimination by the use of legislation.

It is argued by some people that positive dis-crimination is not racist, yet it clearly follows, as Ihave just pointed out, that if a Government legis-lates or makes laws which discriminate in favourof one race, it is by necessity, by extension, dis-criminating against every other race. That is whatthis Bill does.

The very title of it, Aboriginal Land Bill, showsit is a Bill for one race only, and therefore itdiscriminates against every non-Aboriginal race inAustralia.

If we come back to my imaginary Bill, the"Non-Aboriginal Land Bill", which was to makeland available only to non-Aborigines, it wouldquite rightly be attacked, because it would begiving land only to non-Aborigines, and not Abor-igines. It would be discriminating against Aborigi-nes, and we would not find that acceptable.

This Bill is just the reverse of that: It discrimi-nates against every non-Aboriginal by making

1957

1958 [COUNCIL]

land available to Aborigines only, based on theirrace.

Those who argue in favour of the Bill argue thatthe Opposition is taking an extreme position onthis whole issue of Aboriginal land rights.

Hon. Fred McKenzie: And they are.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. P. H.Lockyer): Order! I remind the honourable mem-ber that only recently I made it very clear thatIwould not tolerate interjections. This is an import-ant debate and I want to hear the honourablemember speaking. Every other honorouble mem-ber will have his chance to speak in due course.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: Mr McKenzie will realisewhen the debate continues that the positionadopted by the Opposition is a very moderate,middle-of-the-road point of view. What this legis-lation represents is an extreme position on theissue of land rights.

We have consistently and constantly arguedthat the land tenure system in this State shouldnot discriminate on the basis of race. We believethat is how it should continue. We have alwayssaid that all people, regardless of their race,should have equal access to land and equal oppor-tunity to acquire land.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Is it always so?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT; Order! I remindthe Minister that he cannot ask questions. For astart it is unparliamentary. He has not got thefloor and his interjecting is in contravention ofprecisely what I said a moment ago.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: 1 am not prepared to bean apologist for Governments from 1829 to when-ever. What has happened in the past has happenedin the past. In many cases, had I been there whenthose things happened, I would not have approvedof them.

This Opposition has argued the point consist-ently and constantly that there should not be lawson land tenure in this State which are based onrace. In other words, we have argued that allpeople of all races should have equal opportunitiesto own and to acquire land. That is the mostmoderate point of view 1 can imagine. It is totallymoderate. It means that everyone should betreated equally.

What this Bill does is to seek to treat one racedifferently from every other race. The Premiercalls that moderate. To me that is the most ex-treme position in the argument. The Opposition'spoint of view is totally moderate and always hasbeen. We have never wavered from the basic prin-ciple that all land should be granted equally topeople regardless of race.

This Bill seeks to introduce a system of landtenure based solely on race. The only people whowill be able to make claims and obtain vast areasof land are those who by definition in the Bill aremembers of the Aboriginal race of Australia. Thisdefinition of "Aboriginal" in the Bill further ex-acerbates the problem. It defines Aborigines asmembers of the Aboriginal race of Australia. Iwant to know, and perhaps the Minister can ex-plain when he answers, who is a member of theAboriginal race of Australia? Does one have tohave 100 per cent Aboriginal blood; or 50 per

.cent*. Can it be any percentage; or is it somebodywho calls himself an Aboriginal? Perhaps if onewere to be trite about this one could say that ifsomeone does not have more than 50 per cent ofAboriginal blood he is actually a member of theother race of his majority blood.

This definition is very vague. I know there aredifficulties in legislative terms in providing an ad-equate definition of "Aboriginal". If one looks atthe Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Actone sees an attempt has been made, albeit a ratherpoor attempt when one looks at it closely, but atleast it is more precise than the definition in thisBill. Section 4 of that Act defines an Aboriginal asa person pertaining to the original inhabitants ofAustralia and their descendants and goes on tosay-

.person of Aboriginal descent" means anyperson living in Western Australia wholly orpartly descended from the original inhabi-tants of Australia who claims to be an Abor-iginal and who is accepted as such in thecommunity in which he lives.

That is not a particularly good definition but itgoes further down the track towards a practicaldefinition of an Aboriginal than that contained inthis Bill.

What this Bill boils down to is that any personwho is a member of the Aboriginal race ofAustralia, and we are not sure who they are, willhave certain rights with respect to land which willnot be available to anybody else. It is important toknow to whom the definition relates. I want torefer to the comments of Mr Bridge who tookexception to some remarks made in another placeby members who suggested he may benefit insome way from this legislation. Mr Bridge saidthat because he had chosen a lifestyle which boreno relationship to a traditiohal Aboriginal lifestylehe was not eligible for land grants under this legis-lation. That is not the point; he has missed thewhole point. Whether he will or will not begranted land is entirely irrelevant. The relevantpoint is that he is entitled to claim land by virtueof his race. I am not entitled to make a claim

1958


because I am not a member of the same race asMr Bridge. That is the difference between MrBridge and myself on this issue. For as long as MrBridge is an Aboriginal he is entitled to make aclaim. Whether the tribunal gives it to him isbeside the point.

With the greatest respect to Hon. PeterDowding because his family has been mentionedin this matter-

Hon. Peter Dowding: I trust you will not.Hon. N. F. MOORE:-the same argument

applies in his case.Hon. Peter Dowding: That is rubbish!The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. P. H.

Lockyer): Order!Hon. N. F. MOORE: The members of his fam-

ily who have been mentioned in this debate-Hon. Peter Dowding: That is rubbish!The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! I will not

remind the Minister again. I refer him to StandingOrder No. 106. If he is going to carry oninterjecting perhaps he should get some otherMinister to handle the Bill.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: The Minister's wife andtwo of his child ren-

Pomnt of OrderHon. PETER DOWDING: I take the strongest

exception to the member's personalising this de-bate to bring it down' to a discussion about myfamily. I take the strongest exception to his actionand I ask him to withdraw those references.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no pointof order. I remind Hon. Norman Moore to stick tothe Bill in front of him. Personalised referencesare not part of this debate.

Debmte ResumedHon. N. F. MOORE: 1 bow to your judgment.

Mr Deputy President, and leave the point I amtrying to make to the public comments of MrBridge. He missed the whole point of the argu-ment. While he may not be granted land by thetribunal he is certainly entitled to make a claimprovided he can find six people who are preparedto lodge a claim with him.

The Bill provides one law for the Aboriginalpeople and one for all others. The fact that theMinister gets upset is beside the point. The legis-lation provides for certain things to occur for Ab-original people which will not occur for everyoneelse.

I want the Minister to understand why I amconcerned about this. It means that huge areas ofWestern Australia are involved and can begranted to a very small proportion of the popu-

lation. That is why the Bill is so important; hugeamounts of land are involved.

Many people do not know that the Aboriginalpopulation of Western Australia is approximately31 000, or 2.4 per cent of the total population. TheAboriginal people of Western Australia representa very significant minority within the society ofthe State. That figure of 31 000 was arrived at inthe 1981 census using the rather dubious defi-nition of Aboriginal to which I referred earlier.Members ought to realise also that the total Abor-iginal population of Australia is approximately160 000. This represents about 1.1 per cent of theAustralian population-a tiny minority of people.Yet these people already have 899 176 squarekilometres set aside for their use under variousState and Federal Statutes. So I -I per cent of thepopulation have 11.7 per cent of the Australianland mass. That has been set aside for Aboriginalpeople before Mr Burke's massive land grabrepresented by this Bill. Every Aboriginal inAustralia-man, woman, and child-has 5.6square kilometres or 560 hectares of land alreadyset aside for him or her before we add the 46 percent of Western Australia which Mr Burke pro-poses to give them. They are the sort of f igures onemust clearly understand to get the Bill in the rightcontext.

The Bill seeks to set up nine Regional Aborigi-nal Organisations. The boundaries are not speci-fied in the Bill but one can presume they will bethe same as those contained in the Seaman reportwith the exception that the east and westKimberley are divided in this Bill whereas MrSeaman talks about a Kimberley region on itsown.

These regional organisations, have no taxingpowers but in my judgment they are remarkablylike a new tier of government; in other words,Aboriginal local government. I suggest to mem-bers they read the part of the Bill closely whichdeals with regional Aboriginal organisations.While there is no provision in the Bill which allo-cates funds to those organisations it is quite clearthey will need funds to carry out their functions.We are not told where the money will come from,but presumably like most money for public pur-poses it will come out. of the taxpayer's pocket. viaState and Federal Governments.

A close reading of what the Bill says aboutRegional Aboriginal Organisations will indicate tomembers that they will have considerable powerand influence. The Opposition had an opinion onthe Bill prepared by a Queen's Counsel. I want toquote what Mr Robert Anderson QC has to sayabout certain aspects of the Bill.

1959

1960 [COUNCIL]

In respect of Regional Aboriginal Organisationshe had this to say-

It can be seen that (hose in control of theregional organisation will have considerablepower and influence, especially as the re-gional organisations will control such funds asare provided and will have the authority todecide disputed land claims. There wouldseem to be much potential for bureaucraticgrowth and for the development of elitist rul-ing groups.

That comment could apply to any of the landcouncils of the Northern Territory-that dreadfullegislation we are frequently told about-those:massive bureaucracies that have been establishedin the Northern Territory; those huge employersof activists from across Australia, white and Abor-iginal, which have been set up under the NorthernTerritory legislation. These Regional AboriginalOrganisations sound remarkably like those coun-cils and the opinion of Robert Anderson, QC,suggests that may be what will result.

Very little has been said about these organis-ations in general public debate on this issue, andthat is unfortunate because they have the potentialto change the whole structure of local governmentin this State. They have the potential to set upseparate Aboriginal local governing authoritieswith direct State and Federal funding which willbe involved in all sorts of activities in relation toAboriginal matters. This could create a divisionwithin local government on a racialbasis-Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal-in thisState and to me it represents a most serious threatto the existing system of government in WesternAustralia.

The Bill provides for the setting up of Aborigi-nal Land Corporations comprising seven Aborigi-nal adult persons. These land corporations will bethe ultimate owners of land which is either givenunder this legislation or granted under the tri-bunal. Interestingly enough, individual Aboriginalpeople will not be entitled to own land under thisBill because the title must be held by a communityor a corporation. I ask what is wrong with individ-ual Aboriginal people owning land?

The first area of land that is involved in thislegislation is the existing Aboriginal reserves, andthese reserves that have been set aside for com-munity welfare purposes in respect of Aboriginalpeople. These reserves will be automatically givento appropriate regional Aboriginal organi.sationsupon the Bill becoming law, and then will bedistributed to appropriate Aboriginal Land Cor-porations.

Schedule I of the Bill lists all the land involved,and I suggest to members, particularly memberson the other side of the House, that they have agood look at the schedule and obtain a list fromthe Government in regard to the number of hec-tares that comprise each reserve, and I am surethey will find out what this Bill is about- Practi-cally all the towns in Western Australia, includingparts of the metropolitan area, have some landinvolved.

This land, based on our calculation, representsabout eight per cent of the State or about 200 000square kilonmetres. That is the amount of landwhich will be automatically and immediatelygiven to Aboriginal people the moment this Bill ispassed and is proclaimed. That is what the Billdoes first up-eight per cent of the State and200 000 square kilometres will be automaticallygiven to the Aboriginal people.

To get this particular land grant in perspective,the total area of freehold land in W esternAustralia comprises about six per cent of theState, yet this Bill proposes as a first step to givemore land to the Aboriginal people than all thefreehold land that currently exists in the State. Itproposes to give Aborigines that land under a free-hold title. All the urbanised, farming and agricul-tural land in WA is less than the amount of landthat will be given to Aborigines under this Bill.

In addition to the land which will be given to theAborigines, an enormous amount of land will beclaimable.

The first type of land which is claimable ismission land; in other words, land which has beengiven in the first place to missions as a specialgrant to Aborigines will be claimable. My col-league, Hon. Phillip Pendal, proposes to discussthis matter in greater detail later in the debate,but suffice for me to say that I believe this Bill willgive Aborigines the opportunity to gain ownershipof the five Catholic missions which currentlyoperate in the Kimberley. I believe that theBill will provide for the expropriation of themission land, and let us be clear that the landincludes the buildings on it.

I happen to be one of those people who believesthat the missions have done a good job over theyears in respect of Aboriginal people. I will notsuggest that all of their attitudes and activitieshave been spot on, but they have done a good jobin the main, and it is a pity that there are peoplewho would prefer to see missions completelydisbanded and removed from the area of Aborigi-nal welfare.

This Bill provides the basis for the removal ofCatholic missions, which are the only missions

1960

(Tuesday, 16 April 1985] 96

left, from the ownership of their land in theKimberley. The Opposition is committed, upon itsreturn to Government, to provide some sort ofsecurity for church lands on mission sites to theextent that it is necessary for them to maintaintheir operation.

The second type of land which is available forclaim is unallocated Crown land and this meansvacant, unused or unalienated Crown land not be-ing a road reserve, stock route, or any land for anyother purpose but Far Aboriginal use or benefit. Byvirtue of the Government's refusal to provideexact answers to questions on this matter, the Op-position has not been able to assess accuratelywhat land is involved. However, it has made anassumption based on the cartographic knowledgeof the mining and other industries in the com-munity, and it came up with a Figure of onemillion square kilometres of Western Australiabeing unallocated Crown land, and that, based onthe figures we had at that time, represents 40 percent of the State. We repeatedly asked theGovernment to provide maps showing the percent-age of the State which was unallocated Crownland, but the answer was not given until Mr Burkeunintentionally mcntioned 38 per cent. He has notdenied that statement and we can only presumethat ihe unallocated Crown land in WesternAustralia represents 38 per cent of the land massof this State. If the Minister can Say that that isnot correct, I will be happy to hear what is theactual amount of land involved. Let us presumethat it is 38 per cent, because that is what thePremier said.

It means that 38 per cent of Western Australiawill be claimable by Aborigines who band togetheras seven adult Aborigines and form an AboriginalLand Corporation.

Another interesting piece of information iscontained in an answer given to a question I askedof the Minister for Lands and Surveys concerningunallocated Crown land. About IS months ago Iasked the Minister how much unallocated Crownland existed in the South-West Land Division andwhether he would provide a map:

in his generosity in providing the answer he didnot perhaps check with his superiors to find out-whet her he was allowed to give me the map. I nowhave a map showing the unallocated Giown landsof the South-West Land Division. I also askedhow many square kilometres were involved. Therewere about 12 100 square kilometrcs ofunallocated Crown land in the South-West LandDivision. This Bill makes that land, less the landnow called potential agricultural land, availablefor claim. So much for the argument that the landavailable for claim is all desert, because 12 000

square kilometres of the South-West Land Div-ision, less that bit which represents potential agri-cultural land, is available for claim. Who couldtell me with any seriousness that the South-WestLand Division represents desert? It certainly doesnot.

On the question of potential agricultural land, itis interesting to note that the only time theGovernment said anything about agricultural landand decided it would be excepted from claim, wasafter we made the point very clearly around thecountryside that that was what we feared from theBill. Everywhere we went people asked whatwould happen to that land outside of Dalwallinuand Esperance as it is vacant Crown land. We toldthem it was claimable under the Government'sproposed legislation. The Government then got theshivers. It realised that it was getting itself furtherand further into the political mire and it tried tocompromise. It has compromised all the way downthe track;- This is one area of compromise;potential agricultural land is not to be claimable.However, there is then a proviso that the Ministercan change his mind on this land if he wishes.

The point of this whole exercise is that 12 000square kilometres or thereabouts of the South-West Land Division is claimable. The Bill does notlimit the number of claims or the amount of landthat can be claimed by any individual AboriginalLand Corporation, so land corporations can go forthe whole lot if they wish. The only limitation onthe granting of this land is the requirement for theAboriginal Land Corporation to satisfy the tri-bunal in two areas. Firstly, it must have aprescribed association with the land. Secondly,and alternatively, it may have a specified proposalfor the use of the land. Either of those require-ments must be acceptable to the tribunal.Prescribed association with the land means thatAborigines either have an entitlement to the landin accordance with local Aboriginal tradition, or along association with the land through either resi-dence or use by those members. Thus it relates totraditional ownership, but is certainly full of allsorts of-

Hon. Peter Dowding: Read on!

Hon. N. F. MOORE: That is the definition Ihave in front of me. The Minister can expand on itif he wishes. The prescribed association aspect ofthe Bill means that if an Aboriginal Land Corpor-ation can establish before the tribunal that it hasan entitlement to the land in accordance with localAboriginal tradition or has a long association withthe land and can satisfy the tribunal, it can havethe land granted.

1961

1962 COUNCI Li

The other criterion is that it can provide a speci-fied purpose. The specified purpose must relate tothe provision of social, economic, or other benefits10 the members of the Aboriginal Land Corpor-ation. Thus, if the Aboriginal Land Corporationcan convince the tribunal that it has a specifieduse to which it seeks to put the land, the tribunalcan recommend to the Minister that the land begranted. The amount of land that is actuallygranted-that is, the amount of land that the tri-bunal recommends to the Minister to be grantedand the Minister then grants-is impossible toquantify. Thirty-eight per cent of the State will beavailable for claim. The amount that will be givenis anybody's guess. To a very large extent it willdepend on the disposition of the tribunal, on theattitude of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner,because the tribunal which will make all thesedecisions consists of a Supreme Court judge sit-ting independently and alone. The judge's in-terpretation of the language used in the legislationwill determine to a large extent how much land heis prepared to give to Aboriginal applicants. Thelegislation, by virtue of the language it uses, re-quires him to make countless value judgments inrespect of all sorts of matters. Thus, the attitude ofthe Supreme Court judge, who happens to be theAboriginal Land Commissioner, will be very im-portant in deciding just how much land is granted.There is no doubt in my mind that every squareinch of land that is claimable will be claimed.That is the Northern Territory experience andthere is no doubt that it would be the WesternAustralian experience in the event that this legis-lation was passed.

The Bill also has certain provisions in respect ofthe sea-Aboriginal sea rights, if members like.The Bill purports to recognise and protect tra-ditional use of the sea. Seas between low-watermark and the three-mile limit contiguous to theAboriginal reserves in the Kimberley will beprotected. When I read this particular part of theBill, I took the trouble to have prepared a mapwhich showed the amount of coastline involved.The map showed all the reserves that existed inthe Kimberley. The coast which is contiguous tothose reserves is claimable under this legislation.Approximately two-thirds of the Kimberley coastfrom the Northern Territory border with WesternAustralia around to Broome is contiguous to Ab-original reserve. In other words, two-thirds of theKimberley coast will be set aside as protected Ab-original seas. That is an enormous amount of thecoastline of Western Australia. To get some indi-cation of the significanice of sea rights, I quoteagain from Mr Robert Anderson, QC, who has an

opinion about the sea rights aspect of this legis-lation-

The regulations cannot prevent the bonaFide transit of vessels through the protectedsea, but subject to that, the regulations maygo so far as to prohibit entry by all or aspecified class (e.g. white) persons or personsintending to engage in a specified (e.g. fish-ing) activity.

The. power exists therefore to exclude allwhite people from an extensive area of coastalwaters, for all purposes except transit and toset aside those waters for exclusive Aborigi-nal use. The opportunity exists for the Com-monwealth to broaden the band of coastalwaters thus protected.

What an indictment of what this Bill seeks to do totwo-thirds of the Kimberley coast of WesternAustralia! That is an enormous amount of water,yet according to an eminent QC, the power existsto exclude all white people from that extensivearea of coastal waters. That is absolutely disguist-ing and one of the very good reasons why this Billought to be rejected.

The Bill also provides for the excision of landfrom pastoral leases for living areas. It providesfor one excision from sheep pastoral stations andtwo excisions from cattle pastoral stations. Claim-ants must go to the tribunal and satisfy the Abor-iginal Land Commissioner that they have aprescribed association with the land and a need forthe land. Admittedly, there are several restrictionsbefore the grant can be made, one of which is thatit must not unreasonably affect the operation ofthe pastoral lease. The word "unreasonably"means that it can affect the operation, but it mustnot affect it unreasonably. Deciding what is un-reasonable calls for another of those valuejudgments that the Bill is chock-a-block full of.The tribunal has to decide what effect is unreasonable. Of course, that allows for some effect to takeplace. There is no suggestion in the Bill about howbig the excision can be or whether provision willbe made for access.

Hon. Kay H-allahan interjected.The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. P. H.

Lockyer): Obviously H-on. Kay Hallahan was ab-sent when I made a ruling that I will not acceptinterjections.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: It could mean that thestation roads which are at the present time privateproperty may have to be made public roads.Whilst this part of the Bill clarifies some of the adhoc situations which have arisen in recent years inrespect of excisions from pastoral leases, I stillfind it difficult to work out why the Pastoralists

1962

(Tuesday, 16 April 19851 16

and Graziers Association has accepted it. Surelythere are other and better ways to resolve theproblems in relation to excisions from pastoralleases than to clothe those amendments in an Ab-original land rights Bill. That is not what it is, butthat is what it does. There must be other ways tosolve those difficulties which the pastoralists havecomplained about. I cannot understand why theyare prepared to accept this Bill as a means ofachieving that end.

IHan. Peter Dowding: It is embarrassing.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: It is not embarrassing,because later I will read to the Minister aresolution passed at the recent Pastoralists andGraziers Association conference and he may besmiling on the other side of his face.

If one looks at the tenure of the land grantedunder this Bill, the land will be granted under theterms of this legislation for an estate in fee simple.In other words reserve lands-that is the Aborigi-nal reserves and the community welfare reserveswhich are given 10 regional Aboriginalorganisations and the unallocated land and themission lands granted to Aborigines by virtue of aclaim by an Aboriginal Land Corporation, or theexcisions of pastoral leases-will be granted undera form of freehold title.

It is important to understand what this title isall about, because it is not quite freehold title; it islimited in many ways. If we closely examine whatthe title means, it makes an absolute mockery ofthe Premier's argument that in some way the con-tinuation of the Aboriginal reserves system is pa-ternalistic. Nothing could be more paternalisticthan the form of title proposed under this Bill. AsI go through the conditions attached to it it willbecome obvious, even to the Minister, that this ispaternalistic in the extreme.

The title first of all is not capable of grant to anindividual. What is wrong with an individual Ab-original person? Why does this Bill say land can-not be granted to an Aboriginal? Why does hehave to be part of a group? Perhaps it bears somerelationship to the mentality of members opposite.

Ordinarily, land will be vested in perpetuity. Itcannot be bequeathed or inherited. These are allaspects of the title which do not apply to normalfreehold property-freehold which "ordinary"'Australians. are entitled to have. Secondly, grantsmay contain certain conditions as to the use andmanagement of the land. Thirdly, land owned by adcfunct land corporation will be vested in the Re-gional Aboriginal Organisation and will not revertto the Crown. Fourthly, Aboriginal land cannot bemortgaged or sold without the approval of theMinister. That is paternalistic in toto.

The proceeds of any sale will go to the RegionalAboriginal Organisation. Fifthly, no creditor cantake the land by way of court execution for non-payment of debts, judgments or for overdue ratesand taxes. In the event of the land corporationbecoming bankrupt, the land would revert to theRegional Aboriginal Organisation for redistri-bution. This is paternalism again. There is nothingin this Bill which would prevent those bankruptindividuals from then forming another land cor-poration and applying for the same land.

The land is not subject to State land tax, but itis subject to shire rates. How interesting that theland is subject to shire rates! This was one of thoseso-called compromises that the Premier made intrying to con people into supporting his legislation.He tried to eon the Country Shire Councils As-sociation into supporting the Bill by giving localgovernment the right to rate Aboriginal land.

But if the land cannot be resumed for non-payment of rates, the money has to come fromsomewhere else. We are told that the money willcome from the Government. The Bill says it has tocome from the Regional Aboriginal Organisation,but if that organisation decides not to pay, theGovernment pays.

On the other hand, who gives the money to theRegional Aboriginal Organisation in the firstplace? The Government does. So the taxpayer ofWestern Australia is to be asked to pay the ratesfor Aboriginal landowners. That is totally unac-ceptable as far as I am concerned.

The tenure proposed is paternalistic, and thePremier's talk about the continuation of the Abor-iginal reserves system as being paternalistic palesinto insignificance in the light of what is proposedin this Bill.

I must quote again from what Mr RobertAnderson has to say about the title, because it isvery succinct and to the point. He says-

The title which is derived from the grant isexpressed to be a title "in fee simple". It is tobe doubted whether that is an apt expressionhaving regard to the many restrictionspertaining to the title. Most of the restrictionsare protective in nature but in the end thepractical effect of them is that sale or otherdisposition of the land by its owners would bevery difficult to effect.

That is paternalistic.Turning now to the question of access by non-

Aboriginal people to Aboriginal land, the Bill pro-vides for a five-year period to phase out thenecessity of obtaining a permit to go onto Aborigi-nal reserves. That is something I strongly agreewith.

1963

1964 [COUNCIL]

But in respect of land which is given to Aborigi-nal people-all other land apart from these re-servs-the general laws of trespass will apply. Insimple language it will be necessary for non-Abor-igines to obtain permission from Aborigines toenter up to a maximum of 46 per cent of WesternAustralia. Aboriginal owners can deny the right ofaccess by refusing permission. So Aboriginalowners could exclude non-Aboriginal people fromentering that land, except those who have specialrights conferred upon them by the tribunal.

In effect this provision of the Bill which requiresa person to obtain permission to gain access toland will effectively put into practice the divisionof the State on racial grounds. It has the potentialto make up to 46 per cent of Western Australiaout of bounds to the vast majority Of WesternAustralians.

The Bill also includes a section in relation toAboriginal people having access to certain landsfor hunting and fishing purposes. I have explainedthat up to 46 per cent of the State could be out ofbounds to all Western Australians except Aborigi-nal Western Australians. On the other hand theGovernment is saying special rights will be givento Aboriginal people to go onto land classified aspublic land. The Bill provides special rights forAboriginal people to hunt and fish on public land.

We need to understand what "public land"means in this context. Public land may beallocated land; that is land which is not vacant,unused or unalienated Crown land but which ispublic in the sense it is owned by a public auth-ority or under the management of a public auth-ority. The land therefore includes State forests,nature reserves, and national parks.

Once aga in t he cla ima nts must demonstrate andprove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that theyhave a traditional connection with the land.Nevertheless, it is only Aboriginal people who cango to the tribunal to seek these special rights tohunt and fish in national parks, nature reserves,and State forests.

On top of that, the Bill provides also for thesetting up of special management areas, and thesecan encompass or be within national parks. naturereserves, marine parks, or the like.

Provision is made for Aborigines to be involvedin the joint management of these special areas.The Bill provides also that some of the land withinnational parks can be leased to an AboriginalLand Corporation. The presumption I make onthis aspect is that it relates to places like BungleBungle where it is the Government's intention tohave a proposed national park managed jointly byAboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. I hate

using the word "non-Aboriginal" people, but itseems to be the only term one can use which willstop people jumping up and down.

I do not believe, and I have said so, thatnational parks like Bungle Bungle should betreated in any way different from the treatmentaccorded any other national park in Australia or.in particular, in Western Australia. All nationalparks should be managed by the people bestcapable of managing them. If those people happento be Aborigines, that is fine;, if they happen to behalf Aborigines and half non-Aborigines, that isfine; of if they all happen to be non-Aboriginalpeople, that is how it should be.

The management of those places ought to be inthe best interests of the protection of those placesand not based on some racist attitude on the partof the Government.

The Acts Amendment (Aboriginal Land) Billassociated with this legislation provides for theappointment of two Aboriginal people to the Con-servation and Land Management Authority. Thisis a clear example of the Government's racistthinking on a whole variety of matters. Membersof the Conservation and Land Management Auth-ority ought to be those best suited for the job, byvirtue of their expertise and the contribution theycan make to the management of land in WesternAustralia. Suich people should not be appointed onthe basis of race. It is possible, on the one hand,that one could not find two Aboriginal people whoshould be appointed to the authority. On the otherhand, one might find six suitable Aboriginalpeople. However, one should not introduce legis-lation which says, "Two Aboriginal people mustbe appointed to the authority".

in respect of mineral exploration and mining,much has been said about the so-called acceptanceof this Bill by the mining industry. There is nodoubt in my mind that the mining industry's pointof view can best be summed up by the argumentthat, "It is better the devil you know than the devilyou don't". In other words, those involved in themining industry are prepared to accept legislationwhich will not cause them too much trouble ratherthan take the risk of having something muchworse forced upon them.

The simple fact of the matter in respect ofmining is that provisions still exist in relation toAboriginal land which are different from the pro-visions which relate to land owned by otherAustralians.

I now go back a step to examine what happenedprior to the introduction of this Bill. I refer to thepublication of the Seaman report. A great deal hasbeen said and written about the Seaman report

1964


and, indeed, much was written in The Seamanreport. I do not know whether members have seenthe latest version oF it, but the first publication ofthe report was done in a big hurry, on poor qualitypaper, and it was not very inspiring from the pointof view of presentation. However, the new versionof the Seaman report is a glossy-covered publi-cation with coloured photographs of Mr Seamanand coloured maps of Western Australia' It is aprofessional and excellent publication, apart fromthe recommendations that it contains.

Hon. Kay I-l lahan: On which you-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. P. H.Lockyer): Order! I remind Hon. Kay H-allahanthat not only is it unparliamentary to make inter-jections, but also that it is doubly so when themember is out of her seat. 1 ask Hon. KayHallahan to resume her scat and remain silent.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: When one looks at thislatest version of the Seaman report, one can ac-cept that it is what one would expect, bearing inmind that S1 million of taxpayers' money wasspent on its production. Some people say the Sea-man inquiry was a waste of lime, because theGovernment did not accept everything in the re-port which came out of it, but I think Mr Seamanwould be well pleased with the Bill we are debat-ing tonight. He would find enough from his reportin this Bill to give him the feeling that it is thebeginning; it sets the trend in the right direction;and he will find eventually that, using this Bill as abasis, all the recommendations contained in hisreport will be achieved.

However, the great tragedy of the Seaman in-quiry was the opportunity which the Governmentmissed. Instead of giving the inquiry terms of ref-erence which said, "There will be land rights; tellus how to go about introducing it", the Govern-ment should have said, "Here is a magnificentopportunity to have an inquiry throughout West-ern Australia to find out if people want landrights. Go and ask them whether they want landrights. Find out if that is what the people want. Ifit is what they want, then give us the proposal forachieving land rights".

What a magnificent opportunity, with $1million which the Government found withoutmuch trouble, to conduct an in-depth and totalinquiry into the whole matter of land rights andwhether or not they should be introduced. Regret-tably the Government did not do that. That isregrettable, because, had that occurred, tonightwe might be debating a Bill in quite differentcircumstances.

As it is. Mr Seaman's recommendations bear noresemblance at all to what the vast majority of

Western Australians want. They are totally out oftouch with the feelings, aspirations, and beliefs ofthe vast majority of Western Australians, and thatis the great tragedy of the Seaman inquiry. With-out these loaded terms of reference, the Seamaninquiry could have provided a much-neceded reporton this very vexatious issue, but the Governmentwas determined, because its platform said that ithad to be determined, to bring in land rights comehell or high water, so it went through the processof having the inquiry.

It is interesting that, when Mr Seaman's reportwas unleashed on the public, the Government alsoprovided its statement of principles. It realisedthat what was contained in the report was what Ihave just said; that is, something which WesternAustralians do not want. So out came thestatement of principles which the Governmenthoped would satisfy some of the vested interestgroups anid get them off its hack. I refer hereespecially to the mining industry, because thatindustry has a great deal of money and is preparedto spend it, as it has shown with its televisioncampaign designed to prevent land rights. Whatbetter way to get the most affluent of the pressuregroups off one's back than to give in to its de-mands? That is what the statement of principlesdid, and the mining industry got off the Govern-ment's back. Of course, it had to come out pub-licly and say that the Bill was good; that was partof the deal.

It was suggested then that Mr Seaman's reportwas something which we could ignore, because thestatement of principles now represented theGovernment's thinking on the matter.

However, as I said before, if one looks at theBill and the Seaman report one sees there is muchof the Seaman report in the Bill and Mr Seamanwould be well pleased.

The Government then-and I must give itcredit for this-very cleverly set up a committee todraft the legislation. It invited all sorts of interestgroups to be part of the drafting committee. Iteven invited the Opposition, which I must confessI thought was rather strange.

What the Government sought to do was whatwe predicted at the time; that is, it sought tocompromise the Bill in such a way that it gave into some of the demands of the special interestgroups so that they would then stop opposing theBill. Therefore, compromises were made and theBill was changed to cater for the variousobjections of the interest groups.

As we predicted, at the end of the draftingperiod, these vested interest groups supported theBill, because they had got what they wanted and

1965

1966 [COUNCI L]

so they were prepared to accept the legislation asit did not do them any harm.

They became the defenders of the Bill, so ourpredictions at the time of the setting up of thedrafting committee were proved to be correct. It isimportant to know the real attitude of these vari-ous interest groups. As I promised the Minister awhile ago. I will quote to him the motion passed bythe Pastoralists and Graziers Association. Thismotion is binding on the Pastoralists and GraziersAssociation executive because it was passed attheir conference of 13 February of this year. Itreads as follows-

The Pastoralists and Graziers Associationrejects the concept of land rights as proposedby the Federal Government or any otheragency but supports in its present form theproposed legislation contained in the WAGovernment Aboriginal Land Bill 1985 in somuch as the proposed legislation within theBill affects the interests of the rural industryin Western Australia...

That is the proviso, the qualified support for theBill. I repeat, "in so much as the proposed legis-lation within the Bill affects the interests of therural industry in Western Australia. .. Themotion then talks about reserving the right to in-fluence the Parliament and to propose amend-ments if necessary. The Pastoralists and GraziersAssociation support is totally qualified, to the ex-tent that it affects that industry only. The associ--ation said as a preamble that it was opposed to theconcept of land rights.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Read it again, Mr Moore.

M-on. N. F. MOORE: Let us look at theChamber of Mines news release of I I March 1985under the name of Keith Parry, President of theChamber of Mines of Western Australia (Inc.). Itreads as follows-

The W.A. Government's proposed legis-lation to grant land to Aboriginals and toamend the Mining Act to continue to allowaccess for mining has been discussed in greatdetail by interested parties and has addressedall of these issues.

It related to some issues mentioned earlier on. Iteon tinues-

The Chamber of Mines supports the draftlegislation insofar as it affects the mining in-dustry.

I know from talking to mining personnel that theytoo are personally opposed to this legislationthrough and through. They regard it as being ob-noxious and in some eases they regard it as beingmore obnoxious than I do. Thai is further quali-

fled support that the Premier trots around thecountryside as support for his Bill, It is all quali-fled.

I return to the point I made earlier. Thesepeople have been prepared to come out and givethis qualified support to this Bill because theybelieve it is the only pragmatic way to go. As Imentioned before, it is better the devil you knowthan the one you don't. It is unfortunate that themedia has not seen lit to publish the views of someother organisations in the community which areopposed to land rights. The Country Womens As-sociation, for example, has come out as beingopposed to land rights. The Country Shire Coun-cils Association, as I mentioned earlier, has alsosaid it is opposed to the concept of land rights. Forsome reason we read in the newspaper that a cer-tain organisation supports land rights, but forsome unknown reason these organisations whichare opposed to it have not had their points of viewwidely publicised.

I come now to the question of Federal inter-vXention because it is particularly important, Thereis no doubt in my mind that the Federal Govern-ment proposes at this time to legislate for nationaluniform land rights. The Federal Minister for Ab-original Affairs (Mr Holding) has said there willbe national uniform land rights. The Prime Minis-ter has said there will be national uniform landrights. Senator Ryan has said there will benational uniform land rights, In fact, SenatorRyan, in answer to a question in the Senate-]think it may have even been today-again con-firmed that it is the intention of the FederalGovernment at the present timec to legislate fornational uniform land rights legislation. With re-spect to this Western Australian legislation, theFederal Government has said it will not overridethis legislation provided the legislation conmplieswith the Federal Government's preferred position.In other words, if the State legislation is the sameas the proposed Federal legislation the Federallegislation will not apply. That is all the Govern-ment has got: Mr Burke has had no other assur-ances on this matter. It does not matter what hesays. That is the basis of the relationship betweenthe Federal and the State Governments.

Let us look at what is contained in the preferredmodel because it is important for more membersto understand what the preferred model seeks todo. I quote from the preferred national land rightsmodel of the Federal Labor Government under theheading "general principles" as follows-

1. 1 Comnmonwealth legislation to:be capable of operatingconcurrently with compatible Statelegislation:

1966


be capable of embracing proposedas well as existing State laws.

What does "proposed as well as existing Statelaws" mean? Does that mean the Government hasan undertaking under the table that once this Billis passed it will fix it up a bit further down thetrack? To continue-

add rights to those accorded underState laws where necessary.

That is the crucial point. We return to the crucialpoint that the legislation must be compatible withthe Federal legislation. To continue-

1-3 The Commonwealth not to seek to over-ride State land rights legislation which isconsistent with the Commonwealth'spreferred model.

There it is again. The Commonwealth is not toseek to override State land rights legislation whichis consistent with the Commonwealth's preferredmodel. That is what the Federal Government is allabout in this matter. Mr Burke has had no assur-ances that anything has changed in regard to thecontents of the preferred model. The Common-wealth will not override Mr Burke's legislationprovided his legislation is compatible with theCommonwealth's preferred model.

The Premier's assertions that the Common-wealth will not legislate if we pass this Bill, arc notsupported by any of the facts. I mentioned pre-viously the constitutional question. There is somedoubt whether the Commonwealth has aconstitutional power to legislate but, putting thatquestion aside, the question is how to stop theCommonwealth from legislating.

The next best way for the Commonwealth to beprevented from legislating is for the people ofAustralia to get up and tell them what they thinkbecause the people of Australia have shown re-peatedly in opinion polls that they are absolutelyand totally opposed to the principle of land rights.They are overwhelmingly opposed to land rights.It is not a ratio of 55 per cent: 45 per cent but apercentage of the magnitude of 75 per cent, 85 percent, or 90 per cent who are opposed to it,depending on which particular aspect of landrights one looks at. The people of Australia, bytelling the Federal Government what theythink ofthe land rights question, will be the most effectivevoice in preventing land rights from engulfingAustralia. Fortunately the message is sinkingthrough to the Federal Cabinet because it is notquite as adamant now as it probably was at thebeginning of the reign of the Hawke Government.

We have no doubt that Western Australianswill support us on this issue. We have no doubtthat Western Australians will tell the Federal

Government and put that Government out ofoffice, for that matter, if it proceeds with nationaluniform land rights. The research we have done isabsolutely conclusive; people believe land rights tobe wrong in principle. Also, they believe it willhave disastrous consequences for the future ofAustralia, not only for non-AboriginalAustralians, but for Aboriginal Australians.

What really is interesting when considering thequestion of the Federal legislation is Mr Burke'sattempt to browbeat the public into believing thislegislation is moderate and acceptable, whereasMr Holding's legislation is in some way horrific orunacceptable. Mr Burke must take the blame andthe consequences for being a member of the LaborParty, for being one of those people who attendedthe ALP National Conference last year, and forbeing one who supported the platform I quotedfrom earlier which provides for natioRal uniformland rights across Australia, based on teNorth-ern Territory land rights model.

I think Mr Burke believes that is what shouldhappen, otherwise why would he go to Canbertp tothe national conference and support the platforh ?Mr Burke has gone through a massive and etremely expensive charade since this debate began.His media machine has been very active inportraying him as a great States' rights camn-paigner. He has been portrayed as a man who willstand up to centralist policies. Yet, when he goesto Canberra, as he did to the Federal conferenceof the ALP, he goes along with its proposals with-out even a whimper. There was not one word ofopposition to the Federal platform decision whichpromised national uniform land rights on theNorthern Territory model. He did not complainabout it at all. We have to reach the conclusion,therefore, that Mr Burke supports that line. How-ever, he has realised, like a good politician, thatthat line will put him out of office if he pursues it.What he has done, therefore, is to put up thisgreat charade. He has introduced this Bill andused his media machine to wrongly portray him asmoderate. lHe is using the bogyman of Mr Holdingto try to portray himself as a great an ti-centra list.Mr Burke supports land rights to the extent thathe supported the Federal platform but he wouldrather Mr Holding took the politicalconsequences.

I now wish to make some concluding remarks inrelation to the reasons for this Bill. Apart from theobvious electoral advantage in remote areas thatthe Labor Party sought to gain, it really is ratherdifficult to understand why the ALP, at both theState and Federal levels, is so anxious to introduceland rights legislation. I have no doubt that manymembers of the ALP genuinely but mistakenly

1967

1968 [COUNCIL]

believe that land rights will in some way solvemany of the problems being experienced by manyAboriginal people in this State.

However, if one looks at the evidence of landrights in other parts of Australia, in the NorthernTerritory and int South Australia, one will Findthat there is no evidence of any significant im-provements in the living standards of Aboriginalpeople in those States. Land rights have notproved to be a great bonus to Aboriginal peoplebut, instead, have proved to be a great bonus tothe land councils I talked about earlier and thedozens and dozens of public servants that theynow employ. Huge bureaucracies are developingand many white lawyers have grown fat on thefunds of land councils in arguing land claims andproviding submissions to Mr Seaman, forexample. Lawyers are getting loads and loads ofmoney out of the whole Aboriginal industry. It hasbecome an industry in the Northern Territory,particularly. I am not the only one who thinks this.I am supported by the Federal Labor member forthe electorate of Kalgoorlie, Mr GrahamCampbell. He wrote a letter to his colleagues. Herepresents the biggest electorate in the world. Myelectorate, which is quite small by comparison, ispart of his electorate. He has many Aboriginalpeople in his electorate and, to give him his due, heunderstands quite a lot about what they do.

Hon. Peter Dowding: He supports this legis-lation.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: Maybe he does; he isentitled to make some mistakes and that is one ofthem. I wish to quote from the letter he sent to hiscolleagues because he was worried about the di-rection that the Labor Party was taking and didnot want to be put out of office. Mr Campbellunderstands that the opinion polls are correct. Hecknows what the public are thinking. He said -

The Northern Territory is a living exampleof this-

"This" refers to the problems amongst Aboriginalpeople. He continues-

-... while Mr Bjelke-Petersen obviously over-states the case when he says that mineralrights in the Northern Territory have createda class of black sheiks there is enoughsubstance in the allegation to be uncomrfort-able. Mr Bjelke-Petersen could also havealluded to the many mediocre white lawyerswho have grown fat on land rights.

It was not a Liberal member of Parliament whosaid that; Mr Graham Campbell. MHR andLabor member for Kalgoorlie said that.

This Bill provides the basis for that happeningin Western Australia because all claims have to go

before that tribunal. There could be hundreds ofland corporations because there is no limit as tohow many there can be. There is no limit to theamount of claims they can make or how muchland is involved. They will all need lawyers and inmost cases, because there are very few Aboriginallawyers, white lawyers will be involved. They willget mediocre white lawyers who will make moneyout of this industry. They will see it as a goodplace to get a good, fat, cushy job. People inDarwin and Alice Springs will testify to that. ThePhilip Toynes of this world are making money outof the Aboriginal people.

H-on. Peter Dowding: Where is your evidence tosupport that?

Hon. N. F. MOORE: The Minister should askMr Toyne how much he charges miningcompanies to go and do a survey of a piece of land.

Hon. Peter Dowding: What is your evidence tosupport it?

Hon. N. F. MOORE: The Minister should askhim.

Hon. Peter Dowding: You are bereft of evi-dence.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: I do not have his figuresbut I know he earns hundreds and hundreds ofdollars a day. The Minister's friend, Mr Vincent,charged the Kimberley Land Council $14000 toput in a submission to the Seaman inquiry. lHe is aLabor lawyer who could not win a seat in thisParliament. He is growing fat at the expense ofAboriginal people and using taxpayers' money.

Hon. Peter Dowding: A bit of vindictivenesswithout evidence.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. JohnWillams): I warn the Minister that I will enforcethe regulations put forward by the Chair thisevening. There will be no interjections as far as Iam concerned.

Hun. N. F. MOORE: I have absolute evidenceof a n amou nt of $ 14 000 or $16 000 being pa id bythe Kimberley Land Council for Mr Vincent toput in a report to the Seaman inquiry. That is inreply to a question asked in this House and onecannot get more substantial evidence than that.Other organisations which gave evidence to theSeaman inquiry have still not produced statementsof accounts. They have not given Mr Bridge thefinal figures. I have asked questions for over ayear and a half about detailed information ofwhere the money went.

Hon. Tom Stepens: How much did you payAnderson?

Hon. N. F. MOORE: It was paid by the LiberalParty out of funds raised by Liberal Party

1968


members and nit by the taxpayers of the State asthe member's party is wont to do. It spent$130 000 on television advertisements to try tobrainwash the people about Aboriginal landrights. That amount was for production costs, ac-cording to the Premier.

Hon. Tom Stephens interjected.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! I warnthe member for the last time that any furtherinterjection will be dealt with by appropriate ac-tion.

Hon. N. F. MOORE: There is no doubt in mymind that there are people, as substantiated by MrCampbell, who are making money out of Aborigi-nal land rights in the Northern Territory. This Billprovides a very good vehicle for that to happen inWestern Australia. I therefore commend MrCampbell's letter to members opposite. It is dated28 March 1984 and begins, "Dear colleague" un-like some of his colleagues' letters which begin,"Dear comrade". I suggest that all members op-posite read it because it has a very good under-standing of the problems of Aboriginal peoplewhile I do not agree with all of the things MrCampbell says about Aboriginal people in his elec-torate.

Since 1971, Federal Governments in Australiahave spent $2 billion on Aboriginal affairs. To putthat into its perspective, we are talking about acurrent Aboriginal population of 160000 people.The Australian people, through their Govern-ments, are happy and pleased to support Aborigi-nal people who have special or particular needs, tothe tune of $2 billion since 1971. In this financialyear, something like $2 000 will be spent by theFederal Government for every Aboriginal personin Australia, and that $2 000 is in addition to thefunds to which the Aboriginal people are entitledby virtue of the fact that they may be receivingsome welfare assistance.

The Australian people are prepared to assistpeople in need, and that has been demonstrated bythe fact that they are prepared to support Govern-ments which spend that sort of money. However,the Australian people are fast running out of en-thusiasm as the demands become greater andgreater, and they are running out-of enthusiasmwhen the demands stretch to half of WesternAustralia and, when one looks a[tihe map ofAustralia, a significant part of Australia as well.The people are fast running out of enthusiasmwhen they see the terrible Waste Of Money Spent OnAboriginal affairs-the fact that it achieves sovery little. One only has to look around some ofthe Aboriginal communities in Western Australiato be horrified that so little has been achieved for

so much money. Where is it going? It seems tostart at the top, filter down through the bureauc-racy, and stop just above the level of the Aborigi-nal people who need it. Members should getaround and have a look if they do not believe whatl am saying.

The people of Australia are prepared to spendthe money necessary but they are becoming sick ofthe fact that they are getting no return for theirdollar. They are fast running out of enthusiasm forthe white activists who continue to push the linethat we should live in a constant state of guiltbecause of the purported misdeeds of our fore-bears. We are constantly told that we should feelguilty because John Forrest did something. Hon.Tom Stephens once said to me that because I amlike Alexander Forrest, and because he did some-thing, I am supposed to feel guilty because of whathe did. I do not accept that, and I am getting tiredof being told that I should feel guilty constantlybecause the Aboriginal people do not continue toown the whole of Australia.

I do not feel guilty, because I pay taxes likeeverybody else; and significant amounts of moneyare going to Aboriginal people. What I hope mighthappen, though, is that in the future somebodywill work out how to spend the money better sothat at least some benefits can be accrued.

The problems of the Aboriginal people will notbe solved by dividing the State or the nation on thebasis of race. What is needed is a conscientious,cost-effective, dedicated programme to overcomethe problems relating to health, education, hous-ing, and employment. These are the problemsfaced, not by all Aboriginal people but by verymany of them. Those problems will not be over-come by dividing this country on the basis of race.These sorts of programmes can only succeed if theAustralian people give them their support; andnothing will do more to jeopardise the future ofthe Aboriginal people than the ill-conceived, dis-criminatory, and racist legislation represented bythis Bill.

I quote from a letter to the Narrogin Observerof 3 April 1985 from an Aboriginal person namedRevell Kickest of Narrogin. This is the view of anAboriginal person-I am not saying it is the viewof all Aboriginal people; but what Mr Kickett saysis in line with what 1 am trying to say. Part of theletter reads as follows-

We have been trying all our lives to over-come the problems of being different. At last,some of our children are beginning to over-come these problems.

Please treat us as Australians not Aborigi-nals living amongst white Australians!

1969

1970 [COUNCIL]

That is a plea by an Aboriginal person for Abor-iginal people to be treated in the same way aseverybody else. This Bill works in exactly the op-posite way to that. It seeks to treat Aboriginesdifferently from everybody else. It will create dis-sension and division in the community. It will cre-ate an attitude among the rest of the communitytowards Aboriginal people which will do them nogood at all.

This legislation must be rejected by this House.Saying that it should be passed so as to prevent theFederal Government from legislating is akin tosaying to somebody, "You have got a choice injumping over a cliff. You can jump off the I 000-foot cliff or the 900-foot cliff. Whatever happens,in both cases you will be dead at the Finish". TheState legislation and the Commonwealth legis-lation are equally abhorrent. Presuming that theFederal legislation is based on the preferredmodel, they both should be rejected by the peopleof Australia. We should not saddle this country orthis State with a system of land laws based purelyand totally on race.

We have the power in this House to defeat thisBill, and this is the power we should use. In fact,we must use it. We should show our abhorrencefor this Bill. We should show our total oppositionto this Bill, not just by opposing it as I am doing.but by also rejecting it. We should put our handsup and say "No" when we come to have a vote onthis Bill. That will show the people of WesternAustralia that the Legislative Council is a mostimportant and totally necessary aspect of the Par-liament because, if it defeats this Bill, it will dowhat the vast majority of Western Australianswant it to do.

Our survey showed that 70 per cent of WesternAustralians wanted the Legislative Council toreject this Bill. In that survey, 50 per cent of theLabor voters wanted thc Legislative Council toreject the Bill. I suggest that members oppositeought to go and ask some of their constituents.some of their supporters, what they think aboutthe Bill because. if they did. I would not be stand-ing here arguing against them; they would be ar-guing on my side because they would know thatwhat they are endeavouring to do wiih this legis-lation is totally unacceptable to the vast majorityof Western Australians.

We should reject the Bill, and when we do it willnot be just people like the former Labor Premier.but it will be the vast majority of WesternAustralians who will be saying, "Thank God forthe Legislative Council!"

Opposition members: Hear, hear!

Tabling of Docu men tHon. TOM STEPHENS: Utilising the pro-

visions of Standing Order No. 151(b), I ask themember to table the document that he con-veniently identified at the time as a legal opinionby the Queen's Counsel, Mr Robert Anderson.

Hon. N. F. Moore: I am happy to send you acopy, personally delivered.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. JohnWilliams): Under the Standing Orders you shouldhave asked for that at the time.

Hon. TOM STEPHENS: Point of order-Hon. PETER DOWDING: Paint of order-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The document isbeing tabled.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: Do I take it youmade a ruling then, Sir?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You take itwrongly. I said it was being tabled.

H-on. Tom Stephens: Your earlier suggestionwas wrong?(See paper No. 562.)

Debare ResumedHON. MARK NEVILL (South-East) [10.38

p.m.]: I will make a few comments on Hon.Norman Moore's speech. He made quite an issueof the Australian Labor Party policy regardingAboriginal land, and I will just put forward aFairly simple explanation for that.

The reason the State platform was not changedat the August conference last year was very clear.The ALP chose not to alter that platform becausethe Government policy was under review, the Sea-man inquiry was under way. and it seemed inap-propriate to bring down a new policy when theinquiry was being conducted. That would havebeen seen as pre-empting the inquiry in some way.so the deliberate decision of the State party wasmade. It is no surprise to inc that this Bill issignificantly different from the model of theNorthern Territory Laind Bill. I see nothing wrongwith that. and no inconsistency in it.

The member's claim that this is a racist Billdoes not stand up to scrutiny. Several provisionshave always been made with respect to land andAboriginal people. Captain Stirling set land asideat the base of Kings Park-NMt. Eliza-for Abor-iginal people with a special sanctuary and school.So there is nothing new there. The claim that thisBill is racist is phoney because Hon. NormanMoore recently moved to set up a Select Com-mittee to investigate Aboriginal poverty. That isdiscriminatory against non-Aboriginals who are

1970

[Tuesday, 16 Apr1 1985]

living in poverty. Thai argument is absolutelyphoney.

Another point J wish to comment on is Hon.Norman Moore's claim that much unallocatedland in the south-west should be available forclaim. That is true, but there is another provisionin the Bill which provides that land set aside forfuture public use will not be available for claim.Local authorities have 18 months to have a look atthat unallocated Crown land to see whether theyhave any future public use designated (or it. Thatis what the shires in my electorate are doing. Theyare sifting through all that unallocated Crownland to see if there is any future need for suchdevelopments as sporting facilities and tips. Notall that land will be available for claim and shirecouncils throughout the State are addressing thatproblem within their boundaries, and rightly so.

I want to preface my remarks on the Bill andoutline why my background and experience makeme well placed to comment on this Bill. I havefollowed the development of this Bill from thebeginning and I have attempted to influence mycolleagues as to what form this legislation shouldtake.

I am pleased to say 1 am very happy with thisBill and I strongly support all the major provisionsin it.

I have had a long involvement with both Abor-igines and the mining industry. I have lived mostof my life in the Kimberley and I have a strongaffinity with and respect for Aborigines, and Ihave mixed freely among them. I spent two yearsat the Balgo Mission in the mid sixties. Duringthat time the last influxes of Godgaja people camein from the Great Sandy Desert. That was a veryinteresting time in my life and a great experience.Balgo Mission is about 300 kilometres south ofHalls Creek. About the same time I observed veryclosely the first land rights struggle which was notin our State but was very pertinent to people wholived in the Kimberleys, and that was the attemptsby the Guringi people at Wave Hill to secure landat Wattle Creek. I spoke to a few of those Aborigi-nes at the time and to Frank Wilmington who wasthe then manager of Wave Kill station. I wasprobably more exposed to the pastoral view to landrights at that stage. Ever since those early days in1967 I have followed the land rights debate veryclosely.

To balance my involvement with Aborigines Ispent 10 years as a senior geologist with WesternMining Corporation where I was in charge of ex-ploratlion teams in remote areas. I have followedthat company's negotiations with Aborigines andthe agreements reached are only to be admired.

That company always had good relationships withAboriginal communities. I will comment on thataspect at a later stage in my speech as to whythose good relationships developed.

With that background I hope my perspective ismuch more balanced than that of the previousspeaker, particularly as this Bill tackles the prob-lem of competing land use between the miningindustry, pastoralists, and traditional Aborigines.

Before speaking to the substance of this Bill Iwould like to pay tribute to the effort, energy.patience and thought of all those who have workcdon this Bill. In particular I pay tribute to thePremier who has been closely involved with it andto the Minister with special responsibility for Ab-original Affairs. I pay tribute to GrahamMacDonald who has played a major part in thisBill and to the member for Kimberley, Mr ErnieBridge. who chaired the Aboriginal Liaison Com-mittee. I would also pay tribute to the draftingcommittee who tried to bring this Bill togetherand I believe successfully did so at the end.

I strongly support this historic Aboriginal LandBill. I believe it is the most important Bill that hasbeen introduced since I have been a member. I askmembers to review this Bill faithfully on its meritsand not to reject it capriciously for reasons that donot reflect its intrinsic mterits. The granting ofland rights is niot a panacea. It is not the onlymeasure that will solve Aboriginal problems. It isonly a part in a series of measures which willameliorate the position of Aborigines. The ques-tions of training, employment, housing, educationand health are collectively much more important.That is acknowledged, and no-one is claiming any-thing different.

The Minister, in his second reading speech,outlined the content of the Bill and I Wish to Pointout just how different this Western AustralianAboriginal Land Bill is from the legislation whichhas been introduced in New South Wales, SouthAustralia. and the Northern Territory. This Bill isvery different from those Bills and I think I shouldpoint out just how different it is and show mem-bers the good points of the Bill. We have had thebenefit uf hindsight in this Bill. We have had thebenef'it of wider and more t horough consultationthan any of the other Bills has had. I do not wantto denigrate the efforts of previous Governments.

When we look at the Aboriginal Land RightsAct of New South Wales, it seems to me to he avery strange Act. It appropriates 7.5 per cent ofland tax revenuie over a 15-year period to be paidto the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Councilfor administrative costs and for distribution to re-

w

1971

1972 [COUNCIL]

gional and local Aboriginal groups to purchaseland. This Western Australian Bill provides thatpayment should be made from Consolidated Rev-enue for administrative expenses for regional Ab-original organisations. This Bill does not addressthe matter of compensation for dispossession. Thatissue is left to the Commonwealth.

The New South Wales Bill vests reserved landin local Aboriginal councils and in that respect theWestern Australian Bill is very similar.

Under the New South Wales Act local councilsmay claim land not set aside for essential publicpurposes. In Western Australia the claims can bemade for vacant Crown land and mission landgranted for Aboriginal purposcs originally.

I point out that, in the New South Wales Act,the presumption is in favour of the land beinggranted.

There is no criteria in the New South WalesAct in respect of making a claim. In the WesternAustralian Bill, the criteria is specified clearly inthat Aborigines must have a traditional connec-tion with the land, a long use or occupation ofit, or can claim it on a needs basis which can befulfilled by a specific grant of land.

Under the New South Wales Act, claims can besettled between the Government and the claimantwithout regard for contiguous landowners or otherlegitimate land users concerned. Under the West-ern Australian legislation, contiguous and otherlegitimate land users have right of access to thetribunal and may be heard by it. That is a majorimprovement contained in our Bill.

In New South Wales stock routes are claimable.However, under the Western Australian Bill thatis not the case.

In New South Wales mineral rights go withAboriginal land; Aboriginal landowners holdrights to all minerals except gold, silver, pet-roleum, and coal. Our Bill is far more acceptablein that all minerals remain the property of theCrown.

In the New South Wales Act, royalties are to bedistributed to Aboriginal land councils. In theWestern Australian Bill royalties are paid intoConsolidated Revenue for the Government to dis-tribute as it sees lit.

in New South Wales hunting and Fishing rightsare given over private land where traditionallythey have been exercised. In Western Australiahunting and fishing rights will be extended to pub-lie land. Section 106(2) of the Land Act alreadyallows such rights on unimproved and unenclosedportions of a pastoral lease.

Bearing in mind the points I have just made, itcan be seen that many of the features of the West-ern Australian Bill are an improvement on theNew South Wales Act, and they make our Billmore acceptable not only to me, but also to thepublic in general.

I move on to the South Australian Act which isa hybrid of the Northern Territory legislation. Ishall compare that with the Bill we are debating inorder to indicate how much better our Bill is.

The South Australian Act vests specified land,not just reserves. In other words, it grants somerights to some Aborigines which are not availableto others. The Pitjantjatjara people have certainrights and the Maralinga people have their land.In that sense, the Act accommodates identifiablegroups of Aborigines. Under the South Australianlegislation there is no allowance for objectors toAboriginal land claims to state their case. InWestern Australia we seek to set up a generalclaims procedure which will apply to all Aborigi-nes, not to specific groups as is the ease in SouthAustralia, and our Bill will allow all objections tobe heard.

The second point of difference between theSouth Australian Act-that is, the AnanguPitjantjatjara Act of 1981-and this Bill is thatentry permits are required in the South Australiansituation. Under the Western Australian Bill, or-dinary laws of trespass will apply and the entrypermit system will be phased out over a period of51/ years.

Under the South Australian Act there is nocompulsory acquisition without a special Act ofParliament. Under our legislation, ordinary lawsof compulsory acquisition will apply. We will notneed an Act of Parliament to resume part of anAboriginal reserve for a road or for some otherpublic purpose.

Under the South Australian Act, land cannot besold by Aborigines, whereas under this Bill inWestern Australia land may be sold with minis-terial consent. The Pitjantjatjara and Maralingalands in South Australia are not rateable, whereasthe Western Australian Aboriginal lands will berateable.

I turn now to the mining aspects of the twopieces of legislation. Under section 19(6)(b) of theSouth Australian Act, the AnanguPitjanjatjaraku-that is the body corporate es-tablished under that Act-may grant permissionfor mining, subject to such conditions as it thinksfit. This has resulted in demands for large front-end payments from mining and explorationcompanies. A stalemate exists between B3HP andthe Pitjantjatjaraku people over these front-end

1972


payments which are being demanded. Front-endpayments are unacceptable to any mining or ex-ploration company, because they add dramaticallyto the cost of what is already a high risk venture.Under the Western Australian Bill there is nomechanism which allows for front-end paymentsto be made.

Under the South Australian legislation, Abor-igines must give consent to mining. If thet con-ditions imposed are unacceptable to a mining orexploration company, the matter may be taken toan arbitrator. Under the South Australian Act,that system is incredibly elaborate and complex.Under section 19(11) of the South Australian Actthe arbitrator must be a judge of the High Court,the Federal Court of Australia, or the SupremeCourt of a State or Territory of Australia.

The problem with the South Australian Act isthat the arbitrator's decision is binding. He mustmake his decision in regard to a number of mat-ters including the preservation and protection ofthe Aboriginal way of life and culture; the wishesof Aborigines in relation to the use and control ofthe land; the growth of Aboriginal culture andeconomic structures; the freedom of access tocarry out ceremonies, rites, etc. in accordance withAboriginal tradition; the suitability of the minerand his capacity to carry out mining; environmen-tal considerations; and the economic and othersignificance of the mining to South Australia andAustralia.

The problem in South Australia is that, if theAboriginal group makes a big demand pr an ambitclaim which the mining company concerned findsunacceptable and the issue is then taken to anarbitrator, his decision is binding. In the case in-volving the Pitjantjatjara and BHP, the companywas not prepared to take the issue to an arbitrator,because he may have come down with a decision inthe middle which was completely unacceptable tothe company.

With the benefit of hindsight, we have avoidedthat situation in the Western Australian Bill.

Under this Bill, in Western Australia bona rideminers will have right of access by the simpleprocess of going through the warden's court andapplying for an entry permit. Aborigines have theright to protect residential areas and sacred sitesand may claim compensation for damage to im-provements, or for social disruption occasioned toresidential areas. Under our Bill in no case cannegotiations for compensation be carried out onthe basis of the value of minerals; so we are re-moving completely that bottleneck which hasplagued exploration in the Northern Territory and

South Australia. That was one of the provisions Iwas very keen to see incorporated in the Bill.

Under our Bill disputes in relation to compen-sation for damage to improvements are to be de-cided by the warden and by the Government afterreference to a tribunal which will be set up. Thetribunal will comprise a District Court judge, aminer, and an Aboriginal, and it will makerecommendations to the Minister.

As for royalties, in WA, all the royalties, whichare the normal level of royalties payable on anymineral-they are not to be raised for the pur-poses of this Bill-are to be set and distributed viaConsolidated Revenue. Under the PitjantjatjaraLand Rights Act, royalties are paid into separateaccounts and distributed one-third to thePitjantjatjaras, one-third for the benefit of Abor-igines generally in South Australia, and one-thirdto State revenue. When one looks at those majorpoints of difference between WA's AboriginalLand Bill and the South Australian Act, one seesthat our Bill is a vast improvement.

Perhaps most important is the comparison ofour Bill with the Northern Territory Act, thelegislation the Opposition is saying our Bill is simi-lar to and therefore it will be a disaster. In fact thetwo pieces of legislation are very different. I willnow compare WA's Aboriginal Land Bill with theAboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory)Act, introduced in 1976.

The Northern Territory Act vests reserves withinalienable freehold title. Our Bill vests currentreserves, and no objection is allowed to the vestingof existing reserves.

Under the Northern Territory Act, land trustsare established to hold title. Under our Bill, wehave established local landholding groups to holdtitle, and those groups must be an Aboriginal cor-poration of at least seven people.

The Northern Territory Act established largeland councils to consult, advise, and represent tra-ditional Aboriginal owners and to make lawfuldirections to land trusts as to their functions. OurBill allows for the establishment of sensibly sizedregional Aboriginal organisations to provide back-up services only. Local groups will represent them-selves, but they may call for assistance from theregional Aboriginal organisations.

I believe that Mr Campbell's view-which MrMoore quoted-on the Northern Territory landcouncils is correct. They appear to be unwieldyand unrepresentative bureaucracies, and they arevery difficult for mining companies to deal with.Mining companies have found the delaysencountered in dealing with the three NorthernTerritory land councils to be unacceptable. They

1973

1974 [COUNCIL]

have very big staffs and they are very hard to getanswers from.

What the mining companies in this State wvantto do is to deal with the Aborigines in the way theydid from the mid-l970s, which was to deal withthe local Aborigines directly. This Bill allows that.Mining companies will not have to go to the re-gional Aboriginal organisations; they will not haveto deal with problems of the sort created in theNorthern Territory by their having to deal withthe big Aboriginal bureaucracies. My colleaguesmight not agree with me on this point. This is oneof the matters the mining companies mentioned toMr Seaman and this is one of the things herecommended in his report. I am heartened to seeit included in the Bill.

Under the Northern Territory Act, pastoralleases when acquired by Aborigines may beconverted to inalienable freehold title. Under ourBill, pastoral lease land can never be converted toAboriginal land and will continue to be held on thesame terms and conditions by alt lessees, whetherAboriginal or not. If the Aborigines obtain astation in the Kimberley, that lease will continueuntil 2015, as with other pastoral leases under theLand Act, and it will be held under exactly thesame conditions as other pastoral land. It will notbe able to be converted to Aboriginal land. Thatwould create de facto land claims.

Under the Northern Territory legislation, re-petitive claims are allowable. We have seen theproblem in the Northern Territory of claimsrejected and then another group of traditionalowners have got together and submitted a furtherland claim. Under our Bill, repetitive claims willnot be possible and the Governor's decision will befinal. I quote now from clause I I(13)-

The decision of the Governor in respect ofan application is final and shall not berescinded, reviewed, called into question orappealed against.

That precludes multiple claims, and it is some-thing I am pleased to have included in the Bill.

Under the Northern Territory Act, stock routes,roads, and national parks are claimable. Underour Bill, stock routes are not claimable, majorroads are not claimable, and national parks andflora and fauna reserves are not claimable.

Under the Northern Territory Act, claims canbe made for a period of 10 years. Under our Bill,claims can be made for up to four years and thatwill be from a period in about I8 months after theregional Aboriginal organisations are established.

Under the Northern Territory legislation, entrypermits are required. Under our Bill, entry per-

mits will be phased out over a 5 /-year period. Theordinary laws of trespass will apply.

Under the Northern Territory Act, there is nocompulsory acquisition without a special Act ofParliament. The Northern Territory Governmentdoes not have power to acquire Aboriginal land forpublic purposes. Under our Bill, the ordinary lawsof compulsory acquisition will apply.

As with the South Australian legislation, theNorthern Territory Act does not allow land to besold. Our Bill will allow land to be sold, withministerial consent.

Under the Northern Territory legislation, landis not rateable. Under the Western Australian law,land will be rateable.

Both the Northern Territory Act and our Billhave provisions for a tribunal which will be bothfact-finding and recommendatory.

In the area of mining, the Northern TerritoryAct is different from the South Australian legis-lation. The Northern Territory Act requires eitherthe consent of the Aboriginal landholder or a proc-lamation by the Governor General that mining isin the national interest. The fact that under theNorthern Territory Act a mining company needsthe consent of the Aboriginal landholder is a defacto veto over mining, and that is something thatdoes not exist in our legislation. Aborigines willhave the right to protect those areas I describedearlier.

Under the Northern Territory Act, land coun-cils may negotiate for open payments with respectto the granting of consent to mineral explorationon Aboriginal land. That provision raises the prob-lem of front-end payments before exploration.Some power exists under the Northern TerritoryAct to refer issues connected with payment toarbitration.

In relation to royalties the Northern TerritoryAct provides that 30 per cent of royalties go to thetraditional owners who may be as few as one, two,or three people; 40 per cent to land councils; and40 per cent to the State revenue, which is a specialfund for Aborigines. In Western Australia theroyalties are set and distributed via ConsolidatedRevenue.

Comparing those three pieces of legislation, Ihope, has pointed out the improvements containedin this Bill and the merits of the Bill and thebenefit we have had of hindsight and widespreadconsultation. The Bill is moderate, just, and equi-table.

For Aborigines to be granted land they mustapply to the tribunal which will be set up. Whenthey do so the onus is on Aborigines to establish

1974


prod' of traditional connection; the onus is not onthe triburial After hearing the claim the tribunalwill then make a recommendation to the Minister.The tribunal does not make a decision; it is only arecommendatory body. The Minister makes thefinal decision. Those Aborigines who are success-ful will have no greater rights to their land thanany other person. They will have the sameresponsibilities as other landowners.

This legislation seeks to move away from thereserve system to a system which whilst grantingrights to Aborigines will also give themresponsibilities. It moves away from the paternal-istic past towards equality. Under this Bill landcan be resumed; rates must be paid; a certificateof title must be issued through the normal process;the ordinary laws of trespass apply; and the oldpermit system will be phased out. Those are allmatters which tend to grant equality rather thanmaintain separate and different rights.

It is significant that support for this Bill hasbeen given by the Aboriginal Lands Trust, theAboriginal Advisory Council, the Federation ofAustralian Aboriginal Land Councils, theAustralian Mining Industry Council, the WesternAustralian Chamber of Mines, the Australian Pet-roleum Exploration Association, and the NorthernTerritory Liberal Country League Government. Ithas been supported by Hon. Paul Everingham,former Chief Minister of the Northern T ,erritory,who I am sure would be a very difficult man tofool; the Pastoralists and Graziers Association; thePrimary Industry Association; and many churchgroups. It has also been supported by an increas-ing proportion of the thinking public.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: What evidence is (here forthat?

Hon. MARK NEVILL: The church groups?Hon. P. G. Penda): No, the thinking public.[Ion. MARK NEVlLL: I will come to that if

the member will listen.

Just after the Bill was released last month theChamber of Mines undertook a survey whichshowed about a 50 per cent increase in publicsupport. According to the survey there was a bal-ance last month of 45 per cent supporting thelegislation and 45 per cent opposed to it. 1 believethat level of support will show a further increasewhen the next poll is taken because this is goodlegislation and the Government is on firm ground,and it is becoming firmer as people realise howreasonable this Bill is.

It is an historic Bill which provides an effectiveresolution of a problem which is basically relatedto land use. The Bill also reflects an effort of greatmagnitude by all those people I acknowledged

earlier. The Government has grasped a profoundproblem-one that has not been eletorally popu-lar, but a problem which has existed since whitesettlement. We have tried faithfully to resolve theproblem effectively and fairly. This historic Billwill significantly advance the status of Aboriginalpeople in Western Australia and will lead togreater equity than is possible under the currentreserves system. I urge all members to support theBill.

HON. D. J. WORDSWORTH (South) [11.16p.m.]: Before a Parliament can consider the needof Aborigines for land one must first determinewhat is expected of them in the future Australia.Are they to become an integrated part of oursociety, fully assimilated and treated as any otherAustralian citizen, whether of European or Asianbackground, or are they to remain a race apart?Most Australians believe the objective must bethat Aborigines can take their place beside andequal to the many ethnic groups which make upAustralia.

Nobody would deny that the Aboriginal race,more than any other race, has far more problemsto overcome before the majority of Aboriginesreach that position. Nobody denies chat the Abor-iginal was here before any of us and that he de-serves special consideration. I believe mostAustralians do not want to see a large part of theAboriginal race slip back to a position in whichthey return to their home land to live off socialservices in a part-civilised culture removed fromopportunities, employment and integration.Australians like ethnic communities to maintaintheir national culture but they do not likeseparatism. While they are perhaps more ready toaccept voluntary sepUaaism in Aborigines, theyarc still apprehensive about the side effects.

This land rights Bill encourages separatism forsome sections of Aboriginal communities while notmaking any provision for those who haveassimilated or who are so far down the track thatthey cannot return. The Aborigines in my elector-ate do not support this Bill.

Hon. Mark Nevill: RubbishtHon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: I am correct and

the member knows it. I know he rang up one of theAboriginal leaders three times in one day to try toconvert him to the member's way of thinking, be-cause that Aboriginal told us.

They do not support the Bill because they feelthere is little in it for them other than perhaps abacklash from the rest of the community. Shouldthey try to lay claim to the more valuable parts ofPerth and the agricultual areas of the south-westthey know the public would become antagonistictowards them. Yet there is ample proof from

1975

1976 [COUNCIL]

sketches and historic documents of Perth in theearly days that the Aborigines occupied KingsPark, Peppermint Grove, and other advantageousareas along the river. This Bill does not correctany of that disinheritance for those Aborigineswho lived close to Perth. Rather, like the FederalAct which gives land to the Northern TerritoryAborigines, it is designed to salve the conscienceof the majority by granting the most distant areasto those Aborigines whose way of life has beenleast affected by the way of the white man.

I do not believe this form of land rights will domuch for the Aborigines in those areas concerned.'Undoubtedly, land rights will attract Aborigineslike bees to a honey pot, but one may ask what isthe future for Aborigines who, for example, aregranted an area of the Great Sandy Desert if theyare denied mineral rights. Mineral rights are notgranted in this Bill and neither do I or the party Irepresent recommend that this be the case, but ithelps to make the point.

As far as the isolated areas are concerned, thisBill will offer very little except poor huntinggrounds and vegetation. It certainly does not givethe opportunity to Aborigines to earn an i ncome,and it will not restore their self-prestige.

Most people in the world consider education tobe necessary. It will be almost impossible forAborigines to enjoy this facility and they will nothave the opportunity to catch up with civilisation.

However, there is one distinct advantage thatAborigincs will receive under this Bill. becausethey will be able to go into the isolated areas andescape the influence of alcohol. I do notunderestimate that advantage. Apart from that,land rights could well be a setback for those peoplethey are designed to help.

I hasten to remind members that those Aborigi-nes who wish to get away from town reserves havealways had the ability to do so, and adequateprovision of land has been made for them. One ofthe consequences of this Bill will be to allowfurther factionalisation of Aboriginal people. Inthe past it has becen found that when Aboriginalleases became available the entire settlement didnot stay at the homestead, but broke up into fam-ily and other groups.

The groups tended to set up small settlementsand one of the difficulties that the Governmentfound was to supply services to those remotesettlements. Previously pastoral leases and the likewere occupied by probably only one family whichwas able to choose a residential site with transportfacilities in mind and it had sufficient supplies tolast if a sudden flood occurred. The Aboriginalgroups who set up separate camps often ran out of

food and water and the site was often too remotefor the education and the health care of the chil-dren.

I vividly remember visiting a mission east ofHalls Creek shortly after two nuns had been lostfor several days while trying to fill the educationand health needs of a newly formed Aboriginalcommunity. The Government was unaware of thenew settlement, and a school and other facilitieshave been provided for the group in another area.

Hon. Torn Stephens: You must have been lostalso Mr Wordsworth because it was west of HallsCreek.

Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: I do not think itwas.

No provision is contained in the Bill for theprovision of suitable facilities in relation to landgrants.' If a mining company wished to set up acommunity on a similar site it would be forced tocomply with planning and other regulations.

What effect will this Bill have on the north and,in particular, the Kimberley? In 1880 the area had30 white settlers, and when one reads about theDuracks and the Emanuels one has great sym-

pathy for the great sacrifices they had to make toopen up the cattle industry. One can only haveadmiration for them. It was a hard battle to openup the Kimberley and I think that Governmentshave seldom shown the imagination which theearlier settlers showed, with perhaps the exceptionof the development on the Ord River and theCamballin scheme.

The Land Act does not allow theentrepreneurial farmer to develop a property inthe north unless a Government decides that thewhole district should be opened up under Govern-ment supervision. While the provisions of theLand Act are altruistic they have prevented indi-viduals from cutting out a farm when they saw anopportunity. Indeed, pastoralists sought a changeto the Act when I was Minister for Lands toenable them to farm land under their control.Prior to this the pastoralists were prevented fromobtaining a title to the land. However, thosechanges to the Act allowed pastoralists to obtain a0-year lease so they could cultivate, but the pro-

visions did not give anyone an opportunity toselect land from within a pastoral lease. I was wellawvare of that deficiency.

During my term as Minister on several oc-casions I received applications from people withmoney w'ho wanted to develgp farms in theKimberley, including a family involved in thepearling industry which was actually granted asmall holding.

1976

[Tuesday, 16 April 198$]517

Members who are conversant with agricultureare well aware that the CSIRO has had availablefor a decade tropical legumes that will enablesmaller properties to be developed in many partsof the Kimberley. As Minister I requested theDepartment of Agriculture to investigate land inthe Derby area that would be suitable foragriculture. If I remember correctly when theFederal Government resumed land for an air basein Derby the value of the land was based on devel-opment opportunity.

While land in the south of the State, particu-larly in the Esperance and Ravensthorpe Shires,had agricultural potential it was excluded fromthe initial selection and it would appear that asimilar provision has not been made in the northbecause the land has the capability of being devel-oped; yet it is claimable under the provisions ofthis Bill. Undoubtedly, the new land title will setback the development of this land due to lack offunds and ability of other than Aborigines to ownit.

It would appear that the Land Act hasprevented the development of the land in a hotch-potch manner with the idealistic principle oforganised development and to hand it to the Abor-igines in a pristine state. Even the pastoral indus-try in the Kimberley is being pulled apart. Theremaining descendant of the pioneers of the greatbeef industry in the north has made a deal withthe Government to get out with cash in his pocket.One only has to read the Seaman report to under-stand his influence on the proposal to dismantlepresent Kimuberley pastoral leases.

The Government has already indicated that theEmanuel lease, together with the Alco lease whichit has forfeited or intends to forfeit, is to bereorganised for the general benefit of both whiteand black people.

Hon. Peter Dowding: I take it you support whatis happening in. the Kimberley?

H-on. D. J. WORDSWORTH: Mr Emanuel ap-proached the Seaman inquiry and suggested thatnew boundaries should be drawn up to make aseries of smaller leases for pastoral Purposes whilestill leaving extensive areas for Aboriginal pur-poses. The unanswered questions are: Firstly, inrespect of the general intention in the Hill thatAborigines should have a right to land adjoiningwatercourses, who will get the river flats-the pas-toralists or the community? The secondunanswered question is: Who will get the pastoralleases when they are reallocated as undoubtedlylarge amounts of capital will be required to estab-lish new buildings, yards, fences, and other facili-ties?

At a recent pastoralists' meeting or seminar inthe north, Mr Burke said that whites would have achance of being allocated these new leases. Obvi-ously Mr Emanuel has decided to leave the scene,but it is highly unlikely that the remaining pastor-alists will have the same opportunity he has had ofbeing bought out. I think money will be running alittle short. particularly if enough money has to beset aside to buy thc leases and develop the twoareas I have mentioned.

A recent report has illustrated the plight of theKimberley pastoralists and I wonder how thoseremaining envisage their future.

Hon. Peter Dowding: They were very support-ive.

Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: What did theythink of their representatives in the city?

Hon. Peter Dowding: In Derby last week theywere very supportive.

Hon. D. i. WORDSWORTH: I am very gladto hear that because undoubtedly the lessees whoare left have land which is less endowed and, if theindustry is facing the difficulties indicated in thisreport, those pastoralists will be among the lessfortunate.

Apart from the large areas included in existingAboriginal reserves and pastoral leases, vacantCrown land and mission land, on most pastoralleases Aborigines will be allowed to claim twoliving areas of undefined size chosen from withinthe boundaries of the lease. The Bill provides fortwo excisions from a pastoral lease as opposed to astation, and a station can be made up of severalleases.

Some of the evidence before the Seaman inquiryindicated the fear in which many pastoralists livewith regard to Aborigines being allowed to hunton pastoral leases. This Bill will increase theiropportunities for hunting, including the use offirearms. This problem was not covered within theBill, and I feel that the pastoralists have not beengiven sufficient consideration in that regard.

Another member of the Opposition will speakon the right of Aborigines to claim mission land ifthat land was originally granted for Aboriginalpurposes. However, there seems to be no allow-ance in the Bill for the protection of sires on whichchurches and places of worship are established andfor them to remain the property of the church. Onthat point alone I query whether members shouldpass this Bill.

This Bill and other legislation, particularly theAboriginal Heritage Act, allows for the protectionof Aboriginal sites of significance. This could wellbe a stone in a tree but, at the same time under

1977

1978 [COUNCIL]

this Bill, if a mission has conducted church ser-vices in a building for more than 50 years, the landcan be confiscated even though it is a place ofworship. It is an appalling situation.

What will become of the church buildings ifthese mission lands are allocated? Will thesebuildings be desecrated?

As a former Minister for Lands I had the oppor-tunity to examine many of the files on thesemissions and pastoral leases. I was very interestedin the history of the allocation of the sites and in atleast one case 1 noted that the land had beengranted to the church or group of monks not forAboriginal purposes but for the raising of cattle.As members would know, many monks in otherparts of the world have expertise in particularareas, such as producing wine or liqueurs, and inthis case the monks were renowned for theirexpertise in raising cattle. In fact, they came toAustralia for that purpose.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Then the land would notbe covered by the Bill.

Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: I think the Min-ister should examine the Bill. I think the Ministerwill find that the list of properties that wilt beavailable for claim includes that lease.

Hon. Peter Dowding: No, it will not be includedunless it was granted for thc purpose ofadministering to Aborigines.

Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: It has beenindicated that it will be available.

Hon. P. 0. Pendal: We would not take yourGovernment's word for it, Mr Dowding.

Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: I have a mapshowing the existing Aboriginal reserves, existingAboriginal pastoral leases, vacant Crown land, theEmanuel lease, and those leases forfeited beforeOctober 1984 in the north of this State. It is aremarkable map and it is a pity that it cannot beincorporated in Hansard. It would illustrate thatthe majority of the area is either set aside orclaimable. When we examine it, looking at it fromAnna Plains south to Broome, through to the bor-der of the Northern Territory, apart from a smallarea of coast north and south of Broome and asmall area to the north of Derby-and those areaswould be only perhaps 200 kilometres inlength-the whole coastline could or will becomeAboriginal land.

it has been pointed out by Mr Moore that two-thirds of the sea for three miles out will beclaimable.

Hon. Robert H-etherington: It will be claimablebut not necessarily granted.

Hon. D. J, WORDSWORTH: I would like tothink that it might be claimable and not granted,but judging from the experience of the NorthernTerritory that is not very likely. It has been saidthat 2.4 per cent of Western Australia's popu-lation is entitled to claim 47 per cent of WesternAustralia. I think this is rather an understatementfor if one considers Western Australia, excludingthe south-west land area, there would be a lot lessthan two per cent of the Western Australian popu-lation and the area to be claimed would probablystill be 45 per cent of Western Australia. As Min-ister far Lands, I pointed out several times, evenbefore this Bill was considered, that there was acontiguous area of central Australia spreadingover three States that was equal to the size ofVictoria and was under the control of less than10000 people. I do not believe that Australianscould allow that to continue or that they couldallow the development of the north to be set backby the provisions of this Bill. I am not tryingnecessarily to say that Aborigines are not capableof developing at some time in the future, but Ithink most people would agree that they are notcapable of doing it at present or in the near future.They certainly would not have the money to beable to do so. Most Australians do not considerthat they should have the entire right to do it.

We have great development opportunities in thenorth and I believe that every effort should bemade to develop it and to allow all Australians theopportunity to do so. One of the matters raised inthe Minister's second reading speech is the factthat if we do not pass this legislation, the FederalGovernment has the power to legislate, anyway.Many Australians would wonder how we got intothat position. We arc told it was as a result of areferendum in which we participated. I have toadmit that I did, for in the bottom of my drawer Ifound a how-to-vote card, which I had helped topass out on that occasion. The card is headed, ofall things, "The Liberal and Country League ofWestern Australia". That shows how far back itwas. The card outlined how to vote "Yes" on thereferendum. One question read-

Do you approve of the proposal for thealteration of the Constitution, entitled "AnAct to alter the Constitution so that the num-ber of the members of the House of Rep-resentatives may be increased without necess-arily increasing the number of senators?".

We were asked to vote "Yes". The other questionread:

Do you approve the proposed law for thealteration of the Constitution entitled "AnAct to alter the Constitution so as to omitcertain words relating to the people of the

1978


aboriginal race in any State and so that abor-iginals are to be counted in reckoning thepopulation?".

That is a very odd title for a Bill, It made nomention of the fact that the Federal Governmentwas to have the ability to override the States. Itdescribed the alteration to the Constitution as be-ing such as would "omit certain words relating tothe people of the aboriginal race". Thai washardly a description by which Australians going tothe polls could recognise the consequences ofvoting "Yes".

I asked the Library to obtain for me the sup-porting papers that may have been available at thetime of the referendum. 1 refer to the papers relat-ing to the "Yes" and "No" cases. I do not knowhow much this document was distributed, butthere was such a document which referred to thereferendum which was to be held on Saturday, 22May 1967 on the proposed laws for altering theConstitution. The document purported to containthe arguments for and against the proposedchanges. The interesting thing is that there arearguments for both propositions. for increasing thenumber of members of the House of Representa-lives and for Aborigines being counted, but therewas not a ease for the negative to omit certainwords relating to the Aboriginal race, strange asthat may seem.

Hon. Robert Hetherington: No party opposedit. We were all on the same side.

Hon. D. J1. WORDSWORTH: I thank themember for the South-East Metropolitan Provincefor helping me in my speech. He is quite correct.Indeed, the argument for the "Yes" case stated-

We have yet to learn of any oppositionbeing voiced to them from any quarter.

That rather interested me, so I looked up theHansards of the day and found that the parties didindeed support the referendum proposals. Some ofthe speeches were rather interesting. One was veryenlightening, It stated-

It may be thought that the exclusion of theAboriginal race is a favourable one and thatthe Aboriginals are to be treated as not beingdifferent from any other persons.

Thai was a very interesting comment, made bynone other than Senator Murphy. What the vari-ous parties said is interesting. Senator Gair said-

The Governments of this country have notdone themselves any credit in waiting until1967 to make this correction to enable thepeople of the Aboriginal race to be taken intoaccount when calculating the population ofAustralia and to provide that the Common-

wealth shall legislate for them in commonwith the other people of Australia.

That is what he thought he was voting for. SenatorCohen said-

I am very pleased to see that the Govern-ment has moved on the matter and that theissue will be submitted to the people for de-cision. I am confident that the voters willdeclare against any racial discrimination be-cause 1 believe that basically the people ofAustralia are against any kind of discrimi-nation on the ground of race, religion, creed,or anything else that may distinguish somepersons from others.

It does not really sound as though they thoughtthe proposal indicated a need to make special lawsfor Aborigines. Following up the need for a "No"case, I found that while the Parliament in 1967had passed the Constitution Alteration(Aboriginals) Bill it had also debated the sameBill two years earlier, when the Prime Ministerwas Sir Robert Menzies. He said-

..to eliminate the words "other than theAboriginal race in any State"-

People will realise that that was the crucial word.To continue-

-on the ground that these words amount todiscrimination against Aborigines. In truth,the contrary is the fact. The words are aprotection against discrimination by theCommonwealth Parliament in respect ofAborigines. The power granted is one whichenables the Parliament to make special laws,that is, discriminatory laws in relation toother races-special laws that would relate tothem and not to other people. The people ofthe Aboriginal race are specifically excludedfrom this power. There can be in relation tothem no valid laws which would treat them aspeople outside the normal scope of the law, aspeople who do not enjoy benefits and sustainburdens in common with other citizens ofAustralia.

What should be aimed at, in the view of theGovernment, is the integration of the Abor-iginal in the general community, not a stateof affairs in which he would be treated asbeing of a r ace apart. The mere use of thewords "Aboriginal race" is not discriminat-ory. On the contrary, the use of the wordsidentifies the people protected from discrimi-nation when it is remembered that section 51(xxvi) was drafted to meet the conditions thatexisted at the end of the last century-forexample, the possibility of having to make aspecial law dealing with kanaka labourers.

1979

1980 COUNC1L]

The power has, in fact, never been exercised.If the words were removed, as some peoplesuggest-and there is quite an attractive ar-gument in favour of that-it would changedramatically the scope of the plenary powerconferred on the Commonwealth. That mustbe borne in mind.

It is rather interesting that here was saw the PrimeMinister and the Government of the day arguingagainst the removal of these words, yet two yearslater no-one was able to present a "No" case.

We can look back on this and ask how we everagreed to it. I believe if High Court judges andothers examine in detail the views given at thetime they would not be so sure that the Common-wealth has the ability to make the laws that theythink the Commonwealth has. It certainly was notthe intention of the people at the time, in spite ofthe fact that they voted 'Yes" at that referendum.

I do not wish to speak further on this Bill otherthan to signify that I have made a study of it andin no way can I support it.

HON. FRED McKENZIE (North-East Metro-politan) (11t.51 p.m.]: I rise to support the Bill. Ido so because it gives this State an opportunity tointroduce legislation so that it can control itself.

I have been in this House for a number of yearsnow and I have observed people on the other sidegetting up in debate after debate and talkingabout the rights of the State. I think that can beadequately described as State rights. It is verystrange that in respect of this legislation, when themembers opposite know full well that if this Billdoes not pass through this Chamber there will beFederal legislation. Mr Moore has tonight read atlength our Federal platform, remarking howdangerous it could be; yet before he sat down hesaid we ought to throw this Bill out.

Hon. N. F. Moore: Quite right, and the FederalBill, too.

Hon. FRED McKENZIE: I cannot understandthat attitude. What does the member want to do?Does the Opposition want to deal with Federaldepartments administering the laws?

Hon. N. F. Moore. Are you offering rape in-stead of murder?

Hon, FRED McKENZIE: Or would the Oppo-sition prefer to deal with State departments?

Hon. N. F. Moore: I would prefer to get rid ofboth of them.

Hon. FRED McKENZIE: Where does onehave the most bargaining power? I have heard MrPendal on many occasions and on many Billstalking about the rights of the State. He would be

a prime example. Members know what is in frontof them.

Hon. N. F. Moore: This is a red herring.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. P. H.Lockyer): Order, please! I would remind Hon.Norman Moore that earlier this evening I gave anundertaking that I would not accept interjections,He was heard in silence, so 1 expect him to giveother members the same opportunity.

Hon. FRED McKENZlE: That is the majorpoint in this legislation. The Federal Governmenthas made many concessions to the State Govern-ment in relation to this Bill and what it will do if itbrings in legislation of its own. That is inevitable.This legislation, as has already been stated by thelead speaker on the other side, Hon. NormanMoore, is preferable to that in the Northern Terri-tory. That is the inference to be drawn from whathe was saying.

Who brought in that Northern Territory legis-ilion? It was brought in by a Federal LiberalGovernment. I know Mr Moore says we claimedit, but that was an eroneous claim; it was broughtin by a Federal Liberal Government.

I could not allow this debate to conclude with-out making that contribution. H-on. NormanMoore spoke about the racial discrimination thisBill provides, and asked why Aborigines shouldhave an advantage over white people in this com-mnunity. I wonder what he is going to do when theMining Amendment Bill comes before the House,because that provides for an advantage forfarmers in respect of the resources of this State.There are some points in this Bill which can bebrought forward in connection with other legis-lation.

I Support this Bill simply because I think it ispreferable to have our own legislation in WesternAustralia and not to be subject to Federal legis-lation, That is a sensible conclusion. That is thereason so many of the major groups support thislegislation.

The performance of the Opposition has beenpathetic right through this debate on land rights.It has not been genuine about the legislation itself;it has been making political mischief.

Hon. N. F. Moore. You are waffling now.

Hon. FRED McKENZIE: The Opposition hasbeen trying to gain a political advantage. That iswhat it has all been about to the extent that at by-elections scurrilous petitions were lined up. Whensensible legislation was produced by this Govern-ment, as was its intention, cutting the ground fromunder the Opposition, it continued with this cam-paign hoping that further down the track some

1980


political advantage would be there to be gained.Unfortunately that will not be the case; we willhave Federal legislation on land rights and we willbe disadvantaged because we will be dealing withFederal departments rather than with State de-partments. The Opposition should stand con-demned on this important occasion for notadopting this legislation.

There is no real danger in the Bill.

Hon. N. F. Moore: You should read it.

Hon. FRED McKENZIE: It is somethingwhich will come to pass, whether or not membersopposite like it. With the effluxion of time we willhave land rights legislation.

This is sensible legislation. It is not the Seamanreport adopted in full; the Government hasadopted those sections of the Seaman report whichsuit Western Australia. It is disgraceful that theOpposition has failed on this occasion to supportthis legislation because it hopes for defeat,deferral, or whatever.

With those few words, I support this Bill.

HON. NEIL OLIVER (West) [ 11.59 p.m.]: Iwill only be very brief, but I must rise to speak onthis legislation. It is certainly the most significantBill to come before the House during my service init.

This Bill is a complete sell-out of the Aboriginalaspirations and desires. Neither Holding norHawke has any intention of honouring the LaborParty platform and that stunt which has just beenput forward by the previous speaker of putting agun at our heads is just a charade. Holding has asmuch interest in Aborigines as he has possiblywith the new Constitution in Iceland. I an quitecertain he has more time for the Richmond CityCouncil in the inner suburbs of Melbourne.

This legislation is designed to get the LaborParty off the hook. Where would the legislation beintroduced? It cannot be introduced in a Statewhere there is currently not a Labor Government.

This legislation cannot be introduced in Stateslike South Australia, New South Wales orVictoria where it would be passed through bothHouses of Parliament. No; it has been introduicedinto Western Australia and a gun has been held atthe heads of the legislators here. The Fed eralGovernment is holding a gun at the heads of m em-bers here and is saying, "You pass this Bill tonightor else". In addition, the Premier wants to be seenas the knight in shining armour coming to therescue of Western Australia by introducing thisBill. As I said before, Clive Holding has as muchinterest in Aborigines as he has in Icelanders and

yet he is trying to force this legislation down ourthroats. What a charade! What a joke!

No-one has denigrated and alienated Aborigi-nes more than has the Australian Labor Party. Asa result of the actions of that party, Aborigines arein a terrible state. The Labor Party did that to buythe votes of Aborigines.

Previous speakers have referred to their experi-ence with Aborigines. Thirty years ago I spentsome time with John Flynn. He would not behappy with this legislation. Indeed, he would turnin his grave if he knew about it. He said to me,"Leave the people alone. Let them move forwardin their own time. Provide them with health andeducation facilities, but otherwise leave themalone." But no, the Labor Party had to go out andget the Aboriginal vote. That was all it was after.The Labor Party will use the Aborigines and thendiscard them. Leading Labor Party people whom Imet in Darwin last year said, "The Labor Party isselling out Aborigines". I spent some time with aleading Aboriginal Labor lawyer. He was a gradu-ate of the Melbourne University and he acceptedthe fact that Aborigines were being sold out by theALP. He was spending some time in Darwin nego-tiating land rights specifically in relation to stockroutes, but he was getting nowhere. He knew hewas getting nowhere and a couple of leadingLabor lawyers told him he would not get any-where. He will not even get anywhere with BobHawke.

I shall relate my experience when I travelledthrough Central Australia approximately 25 yearsago. I spent six months in Central Australia and Ihad the opportunity to meet tribal Aborigines. Ishould like to relate to members my experience onthat occasion and compare that with the experi-ence I have had in my electorate.

On one occasion in Central Australia I arrivedat a tribal ground where the great painter,Namatjira, had died the previous night. As I droveinto the area in my landrover I observed that theyoung children were kicking a football aroundwith their bare feet and the temperature was I110degrees. They came up to my vehicle and looked atthe dials as if they had never seen a car before.Indeed, in those days, approximately 25 years ago,vehicles such as landrovers were seldom seen inCentral Australia. It was interesting to observethose tribal people.

My experience was quite different when I wentout to Henley Brook in Upper Swan, in responseto a letter I had received and in order to examine aproblem which had beset the community there.Evidently a fifth cousin twice removed had died inLongridge some I8 months earlier, and the mess-

1981

1982 [COUNCIL]

age had got through. I arranged an appointmentto examine a problem those people were experi-enicing with the Burke Labor Government, butthere was no-one there. That indicates the differ-ence between the two situations.

It is very sad to return to those places and seewhat the Labor Party has done to Aborigines. Onesees the situation if one goes to Central Australia.There are no longer any Aborigines at AngusDowns. They no longer work the stations oroperate as stockmen. Instead those Aborigines arelying among broken glass in the gutters of AliceSprings waiting for their pension cheques, becausethe ALP has put them down and denigrated them.

Mr Deputy President (Hon. P. H. Lockyer),you would be aware of the position when youtravel through Wyndham and Roebourne. Youwould see the way in which Aborigines are nowliving in those towns.

Hon. David Wordsworth referred to the positionat Anna Plains. I once saw a photograph of theAborigines who lived there and they were healthyand happy. However, they do not live there anymore. They are lying among the broken glass inthe gutters of Roebourne. That indicates what theLabor Party hasdone to Aborigines.

You, Sir, would be aware that there is a largeAboriginal population in Malaysia. An interimhousing settlement programme has been set upand it is extremely successful. It is quite differentfrom the disgraceful way in which Labor Govern-ments have performed in respect of Aborigines inthis country.

I have met many of the fringe dwellers in myelectorate and they are very fine people. Many ofthem came to the city as itinerant workers to stripthe grapes in thc Swvan Valley or as croppers. Theywere good wvorkers and were regarded as such bypeople in the Swan Valley. However, today onecannot get an Aboriginal to pick a grape or do anywork in the Swan Valley.

A development known as Cullacabardee wasproceeded with and it was seen as providing tran-sitional accommodation for Aboriginal people. Itwas a settlement designed for people who wantedto live in a semi-tribal situation or who wereinterested in learning how to adapt tourbanisation. An excellent Catholic school wasprovided along with various other facilities. How-ever, approximately five groups moved out of thearea. Admittedly some were Thursday Islanderswho came to work on the standard gauge railwayand stayed. However, two groups led by MrBropho have remained. Mr Bropho does not wantthe Aboriginal Lands Trust, nor does he want thistype of legislation. He wants land to be transferred

to him in his own right: so I do not know how theGovernment will endeavour to meet his wvishes.

In conclusion I say that the Liberal Party hasalways stood for caring for those peopledisadvantaged through no fault of their own. Wehave never seen so many people disadvantaged asnow under a Labor Govern ment-people on fixedincomes having to face tremendous inflation, pen-sioner asset tests, and everything else the Govern-mnent can do to inconvenience disadvantagedpeople: and all this by a Government which says itcares for people.

The Labor Party has no interest for people whoare disadvantaged through no fault of their own,while the Liberal Party has always stood for thosepeople. The Government has so often tried toclaim credit for many of the things that we did forAborigines. Therefore this legislation and thestunts that surround it are of no interest to me. Ifthe Government wants to use these people in thisway, let it do so, but its actions will be on therecord and will be known and be seen for whatthey are.

HON. KAY HALLAHAN (South-East Metro-politan) [12.11 a-rn.]: I will not speak at greatlength but I want very strongly to support the Bill.Firstly, I cannot ignore the comments just madeby Hon. Neil Oliver, who really did seem to behaving a terrible fantasy when commenting aboutthe Labor Party somehow feasting on the disad-vantages caused to Aborigines. As much as it doesnot suit us to know they are disadvantaged, wehave not been in power long enough to put them ina depressed state. His party holds the record forthat and it is the State and Federal Liberal Partieswhich can look to the very inadequate policies theyhave pursued for Aboriginal people which haveleft us with this situation. I hope Hon. Neil Olivertakes note that I strongly resent his crazy, mixed-up comments.

This Bill does not in any way seek to deal withordinary circumstances. We heard Hon. NormanMoore make some very interesting statements, buthe did not seem to realise that the Aboriginalpeople in this country are facing extraordinarycircumstances.

They are the indigenous people of this countryand they have an affinity with their land, whichwas dispossessed of them by us as Europeanscoming to this country. While I do not acceptpersonally that we should accept guilt on behalf ofthe Forrests or any other explorer of those earlytimes, we need to look to our own responsibilities.Hon. Norman Moore should do that rather thanprojecting his guilt back onto early explorers.

1992

[Tuesday, 16 April l9851 98

We are dealing with a group of people who areabsolutely poverty-stricken. They rank far toohigh among those who are counted below the pov-erty line. Their health standards are akin to thoseof people in third world countries, and their infantmortality rate is the same.

I do not doubt at all that Aborigines want to belike other people, but it is a myth to say that we donot need special Bills for special circumstances,because they can get there if they want to.

We have dispossessed the Aborigines. They arethe most disadvantaged group in our population,and to suggest otherwise is to be quite irrespon-sible and is not to face up to reality. While I canunderstand that it is very unpleasant and not avery good circumstance for us to have to face upto, the fact is that we do ourselves no justice or thedisadvantaged Aborigines no justice if we do notface up to that reality.

When I talk about dispossession, I am talkingabout their way of living in harmony with theirnatural surrounding and the wherewithall thatprovided for their well-being and the ongoingmaintenance of their community groups. TheAborigines have lost that.

Members opposite might like to think abouthow they would ind themselves if they were tolose everything that was significant to them for themaintenance of their own personal needs and forthe needs and the well-being of their families andthe community generally. This is what faces theAborigines.

It is my hope that we will start to see Abori ginesin greater numbers availing themselves of theopportunities that other families can avail them-selves of. That is j .ust not possible at present. Theability to do that is denied them.

We must give special recognition to their cul-tural heritage, and land is a very significant partof that. To give Aboriginal people the ability toclaim land to which they can establish some tra-ditional association or belonging will give them asense of cultural dignity and from that a sense ofpersonal dignity. It is from that principle that allpeople make steps forward.

If we deny this opportunity to them we are in avery parlous state to push forward and fight forourselves and our children so that we may enjoythings like good health, good education, good nu-tritional standards and all the other opportunitieswe take for granted. Do members opposite thinkwe have not benefited from generations of living inthis society to which we have been born?

It is the right of Aborigines to accept or toreject values that are in conflict with their culturalheritage so that they can build a strong com-

munity basis from which they can find amesh with the European society. That canquite harmoniously, but it cannot happenposition of absolute disadvantage.

way tohappenfrom a

This is why this Bill is so very crucial. If it isdefeated here it will be one of the most bitterexperiences I am likely to face in this House. Stat-istics show that this House is the mostundemocratically elected in the westerndemocracies. If the Bill is defeated it will go downas part of the record of achievement of such anunfairly elected House, one which chose to disad-vantage a severely disadvantaged group. It wouldbe an absolutely true commentary on the make-upof this House and on the members who areunfairly here because of a very poorrepresentational system of election.

Hon. C. J. Bell: Absolute garbage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon.Williams): Order! Hon. Colin Bell willinterjecting.

Johncease

Hon. KAY HALLAHAN: The important thingabout this Bill is that it gives Aboriginal peoplethe opportunity to claim land to which they feelthey have a sense of belonging and a sense ofentitlement on which they can build a sense ofcommunity.

It also provides them with a sense of certainty,something which they lack. I do not know whetherany member opposite has lived in a state of uncer-tainty about his economic well-being or any otherwell-being to such a degree that he did not haveany sense of belonging anywhere. This Bill seeksto overcome that for the Aboriginal people.

The comments made tonight by members of theOpposition have shown no recognition of thosethings on which our whole personal entity, ourentire sense of wholeness about ourselves, is based.

I will refer now to some of the comments made,and there were a lot of erroneous statementstonight from members opposite, so many that onecould not expect to correct them all.

We want to make it possible for a group ofpeople in the community to have a sense of belong-ing to an area to which they can establish theyhave a claim. It will not be an easy process, but theguidelines in the Bill allow for that to happen.

Having achieved all that, it would be quite rid-iculous for us to make it possible to resume landfor the non-payment of rates and indeed not tosafeguard that land for future generations; andthat is one of the reasons that such a measure iscontained in the Bill.

1983

1984 [COUNCIL]

The legislation does provide a measure ofequality for other landowners, having once estab-lished land ownership and land tenure-the pa-ternalism which Hon. Norman Moore spokeabout, which I found quite incredible coming fromthe Opposition. We heard the word used manytimes. Where use no longer remains for land, itcan be sold in special circumstances, but uponreference to the Minister. That relates to urbanfringes where in fact it may well occur as thingsprogress that the community would not have usefor a particular block of land. They could thenmake a resolution between themselves, if every-body establishes that there is no use for the land,and say 'Let us realise the value of it", and referthe case to the Minister, get the money from thesale and put it into a more useful communityfacility. That seems eminently sensible and not atall paternalistic.

On the question of paternalism in othercountries-and I include the Americas, Canada,and New Zealand, though I do not intend to do acomprehensive international study because I havenot had time to do so. as much as it would havebeen very enlightening-other nations have allcome to terms with the fact that their indigenouspeople are a special group within the community.

In this country we have continued to deny thatreality and it really is time that we took notice ofit. Like the Hon. Mark Nevill, I commend allthose people who have brought together a Billwhich will finally give this community, this State,and this nation a chance to come to terms withthis very difficult question. It really is quite asignificant step forward and for that reason Iwould be very sorry indeed to see it lost.

In regard to the question of land and theAmerican Indians, statistics show that where thosegroups had the opportunity to dispose of landwithout adequate safeguards and without ad-equate awareness of future needs for handing onto future generations, in fact they did lose con-siderable areas of land that one would haveexpected to be passed on to future generations. Iam talking about the foreseeable future. Nothingis fixed. In 50 years' time circumstances maychange with progress and people's redefining ofthe future and their identities, and circumstancescan change. At the point we are at now, havingestablished Aborigines' right to their land, weshould safeguard it.

If this Bill is passed tonight, it will represent avery significant milestone in a psychological wayin the attitudes of Western Australians towardAboriginal people. It would be a tremendous stepforward for us to acknowledge that Aboriginalpeople have special needs and special associations

with the land, that they are especiallydisadvantaged and that we really can afford to bea little more tolerant of people who are different;but there has been no recognition of that in any ofthe speeches made by members of the Oppositiontonight.

If members of the Opposition have read thebook Black Like Me by Griffin they would knowhow difficult it is to stand out in any way. Whocan really disguise the colour of their skin, noteven allowing for different lifestyles? We are not avery tolerant people in regard to accepting differ-ences and in treating people in an equal way. It isa myth that in our national character we believe ina fair go. That national characteristic I like verymuch, but it really has some limitations that wewill treat people in a fair way provided they arenot too different. We have heard no recognition ofthat at all in the Opposition's approach and Isuggest for those reasons the issue has not beendealt with in a realistic way.

I guess the sorts of things that Hon. Neil Oliverwas suggesting, that a most politically expedientcampaign has been conducted by the Opposition,could apply. The Bill does provide-and this iswhy it has attracted the consensus that it hasattracted-a certainty for whole groups of West-ern Australian communities. I refer to the pastoralindustry, in spite of the value judgments that Hon.Norman Moore referred to in regard to excisionsand whether they will be judged on whether theyhad an unreasonable effect on the pastoral lease.The Bill does provide guidelines for dealing withexcisions. Currently every one is in a very uncer-tain position-Aboriginal people, pastoralists,miners, the lot-and this Bill gives everyone somecertainty. It sets out the position.

We may not like to see that people can actuallyhave clearly defined guidelines, but at leastthrough those guidelines the subjectivity and un-certainty are removed. That is not the way theOpposition works. I know members of the Oppo-sition like to look after their valued friends andtheir advantaged groups in the community.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: You are looking after theminers.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Hon. P. H.Lockyer): Hon. P. G. Pendal will ceaseinterjecting.

Hon. KAY HALLAHAN: The Bill provides ameasure of equality which means that people willhave an opportunity to grow and develop and findtheir sense of the community and whatever it is inlife they are looking for, which will no doubt in-clude good health, good education, good nutrition,greater access to decision-ma king, and moving

1984


into positions where decisions are made. We cer-tainly see few Aboriginal people holding suchpositions. Members may suggest that Aboriginesare only a small part of the community, but if welook at our prison system we see they are over-represented, and that is no accident of history.That is the way everything is structured atpresent; it predetermines that they will experiencethings in a way in which white people will not.

In regard to the attitudes of the WesternAustralian community I would like to refer to thequite remarkable change I have perceived inpeople's attitudes to this issue. Historically it hasbeen a very difficult issue for us. It has causedmany people to do a lot of soul-searching. I com-mend large numbers of people in the communitywho have shown an ability to shift their positioneven when it is into an area where they have beenscared out of their wits by the Opposition threat-ening to take away their backyards, or other simi-lar matters which cloud people's thinking aboutissues. However, in spite of all that and in the faceof good information and a sensible approach to theBill, the Chamber of Mines survey, which I under-stand was conducted after the Liberal Party sur-vey to which Hon. Normal Moore referred as "oursurvey", revealed that 45 per cent of WesternAustralians are in favour of land rights and 45 percent are against this legislation and 10 per cent areundecided. That really shows quite a shift in thecommunity's attitudes, and that is a veryheartening sign.

It will be a dark day for this State if this Bill isnot passed, and I strongly commend the Govern-ment on all it has achieved in bringing this legis-lation to this House.

HON. P. G. PENDAL (South Central Metro-politan) [ 12.30 atm.]: If any evidence were neededto indicate the lukewarm and languid support thatthe Government has for this Bill, it has been verymuch demonstrated tonight by the abysmal per-formance of speakers on the Government side on apiece of legislation which, by their own admission,is regarded as one of the most important to comebefore any Australian Parliament for many years.

I suggest that in a debate of this kind it isimportant for all of us to separate two strands ofthinking which are not necessarily compatible,even though the advocates of the Bill claim theyare. The first strand is that embodied in the gen-eral view that we must do something for the Abor-iginal people; that their lot is unacceptable in acivilised society. I might say that that is an argu-ment with which I have no trouble concurring.

The second strand is normally an extension ofthe first. It is embodied in the theory that as we

need to do something for Aborigines, it automati-cally follows that that something must be rights toland over and above what is already available toall citizens of Western Australia. Those twostrands have been presented in a somewhat similarfashion by a number of Christian leaders in ourcommunity who take the view that justice, what-ever that might be taken to mean, needs to be doneto Aboriginal people, and that by extension justicemust be seen as land rights. I personally have nodifficulty in endorsing the view that Aboriginesare entitled to be treated justly by society, but Ihave every difficulty in accepting that justice andland rights are one and the same as though we aretalking about an indivisible subject.

Politicians have long been accused of shufflingproblems relating to Aborigines into the too-hardbasket. I suggest that that is not only unfair, buthistorically it can be shown to be quite inaccurate.That sort of criticism presupposes there is onesimple solution and that nothing has been done inthe past and no advances have been achieved. I putit to the House that that is patently absurd.

Hon. Peter Dowding: It does not suggest that.

Hon. P. G. PENDAL: It is not a question ofwhether it is suggested: It has been stated ex-plicitly in the course of this debate if the Ministerhad cared to listen.

Back in the 1920s, one Aboriginal activist inthis State listed a whole host of complaints. Onewas that some whites in this State advocated seg-regation. The same Aboriginal saw the vote as animportant objective of his people. That person'sname was Norman Harris. In his words, hewanted "one law for us all; that is the same lawthat governs the whites".

That same individual asked questions like this:Why should not a native have land? Why shouldhe be subject to segregation in a country like this?Why should he be refused entry into hotels? Whyshould be be subjected to discriminatory arrests?Why should he not have the vote?

I put it to members that most of those questionshave been resolved in the six decades or so sincethat gentleman made those laments. Aboriginescan hold land; they are protected against acts ofsegregation; they have access to hotels; they haveprotection against discriminatory arrests; and theyhave been given the vote. What one does findinteresting in all that, bearing in mind that I havequoted the words of an Aboriginal, is that one doesnot find much reference in the list of grievances toa desire for land rights, or land rights as has beenperceived by the current Government and ascontained in this Bill.

(63)

1995

1986 [COUNCIL]

In 1973 an interview was republished 40 yearsafter it was first conducted. It was conducted by aman by the name of Paul Hasluck who, by repu-tation, was known to have not an unsympatheticview of the plight of Aboriginal people in thisState. It was Paul Hasluck who conveyed the com-plaint of one Aboriginal that "you try to improveyour place but you still can't get any of the privi-leges that white people get". This person wasasked about the privileges that Aboriginal peopledesired, and Hasluck's report was as follows-

He said that the State schools would nottake their children, that even if they hadmoney the local picture show would not letthem in, and they could not go into places(meaning the hotels) where white men couldgo.

It is significant again that the question of landrights does not loom large on the horizon of thatAboriginal. Instead those people wanted educationfor their children and the right to go to a cinemnaor other places that were available to white people.I am not disputing or discussing or denying Abor-iginal links with the land. I am saying that as timewent by the demands of Aborigines changed ascircumstances changed, and as they saw a whitesociety at work they wanted a place in that so-ciety-the right to drink, the right to vote, to havetheir children educated, and to be freed from thestigma of discrimination.

I believe it is fair to draw from this the con-clusion that separate land rights as embodied inthis Bill and as explained in the Labor manifestosin the last decade is not a desire of the Aboriginalpeople at all but rather a notion that has beenpromoted largely by whites throughout the 1970sfor their own variety of reasons.

Like my colleague, Hon. Norman Moore, I haveno doubt some of those people are motivated be-cause they sincerely believe in what they aredoing.

Others, I suggest, see it as a way of expungingthat collective guilt that Europeans are supposedto feel for having taken possession of this conti-nent in 1778. Others are motivated by a hatred,and I use the word advisedly, of such institutionsas the Christian churches and see the granting ofland rights as a way of putting the churches backin their place. This Bill certainly plays into thehands of people who would promote that sort ofbigotry.

Only a few weeks ago a spokesman for thePremier was quoted in The West Australian assaying that Bishop Jobst of Broome had misreadthe Bill now before the Parliament. I want to readthat story because it has some significance; it ap-

peared in The West Australian on 30 March. Iquote as follows-

The Roman Catholic Bishop of theKimberleys, Bishop John Jobst, had-misread" the Aboriginal Land Bill when he

said that church mission lands could begranted to Aborigines, according to aGovernment spokesman.

Bishop Jobst spoke publicly on Thursday ofhis fears that the Bill allowed for missionlands granted by the crown to be claimed byAborigines.

A spokesman for the Premier said yester-day that he did not believe that a takeover ofmission lands would happen because of theproposed land-claim procedure.

The spokesman went on to say a variety of otherthings including-

"We have been assured by the CatholicChurch that there was no problem becausethe legislation allows for all claims to betested. ..

Apart from anything else, this gentleman whopurports to represent the Premier, clearly has nounderstanding of the way in which the Catholicchurch is structured because of the statement thatthe Government has been "assured by the Cath-olic church". This Government has been preparedto listen only to selected views within the Catholicchurch. I do not quarrel with its right to do that,but it has no right to do what this Minister op-posite us does and that is to dress it up beyondwhat it is as though to represent a universal cor-porate view of the Catholic church. It representsthe views of some bishops in the Catholic churchjust as there are some bishops in the Catholicchurch in Australia who take precisely the op-posite view to that taken by Mr Dowding.

I believe that someone, somewhere, is tellingfibs or lies because the report that appeared in TheWest Australian on 30 March cannot be right ifwhat is in the Bill and the explanatory memor-andum is right. One or the other has to be wrongbecause we are assured in the article by thespokesman for the Premier that mission lands can-not and will not be claimed and yet the Sill con-tains repeated references to the fact that they canbe claimed. The Bill and the explanatory memor-andumn tell an entirely different story.

The fact is, as my colleague Hon. NormanMoore, said, mission land is claimable. What isthe motivation for the Premier's spokesman to saythe reverse? If the story is wrong and the Premierwas misquoted, why did the Premier not seek tohave the impression corrected subsequently? Nosuch effort was made and no retraction was

1986


published. I therefore ask the question: What hasmotivated the Premier's spokesman, in thePremier's name, to say things that are clearly thereverse of what is contained in the Bill? By theGovernment's own admission, mission land is anyland which was put to use for "the purpose ofministering to Aboriginals". I ask the question:Who has been responsible for that enormous de-cision, that landmark decision, that Christianmission work and, in particular, the work of theCatholic missions of this State are to come to anend? Who made that decision? I ask also what ofthe Aboriginal people who, for years, have ben-efited from those missions and particularly theCatholic missions? What is to be their part ortheir fate from here on in? Many of them have nodesire to sever their connections with the Catholicmissions but, again, this Government knows bestfor these people.

The act of interference goes even further thanthat. Under division 3 in part I I of the Bill we aretold "it is not necessary to demonstrate anyprescribed association with the land in order tohave it taken away from the missions and given toAboriginal Land Corporations". I am aware thatdivision 2 of the Bill talks about other ways inwhich mission land and unallocated Crown landcan be made available for claim and allocation toAboriginal people. I am talking about that part indivision 3 where it says that it is not necessary todemonstrate any prescribed association with theland in order to have it confiscated from themissions of this State and given to AboriginalLand Corporations.

There has been some dispute over just what landwill or will not be claimable. The Premier hastaken the easy way out in this regard by tellingsuch people as Bishop Jobst that, in the finalanalysis, the decision will have to be made by theAboriginal Land Commissioner as to whether theland falls within the ambit of the Bill. He adds,however, that ultimate decision will be reservedfor the Government of the day in each case.

I put it to members that that is a gross derel-iction of duty on the part of the Government if it isseriously stating that, on the one hand, missionland is claimable without Aborigines having todemonstrate any prescribed association with thatland and, on the other hand, if there are anydoubts about the matter, those doubts will beresolved by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. Isuggest that is not good enough. If the Govern-ment wants to kick out the Catholic church andother Christian churches which control themissions of this State, I suggest it do so openly andtake full responsibility for the consequences ofthat policy.

Long before the present advocates of land rightscame on the scene, missions were tending the Ab-original people. As Mr Moore pointed out, theyhave not always gone about the task in a perfectway. However, I remind members that thatinterest in the welfare of Aboriginal people wasbeing shown and continues to be shown whenmany others in the community did not and do notcare a jot about the fate of Aborigines. Can any-one deny that many Aboriginal communities mayhave perished before now except for theministerings of these missionaries? They have sup-plied food, diets, and medical aid, quite apart fromany spiritual sustenance.

However, the humanists have not confinedtheir arguments or attacks on the missions just tothose areas. Clause 35 of the Bill contains theodious and offensive comments to the effect thatany mission lands shall not attract monetary com-pensation where there has been the use of unpaidlabour of Aboriginals. Where does the Bill makeany allowance for the unpaid labour ofmissionaries over a century and more? Whatabout the missionaries, apart from those whoattempted to provide spiritual sustenance, whohave taken medical, education, and other skills tothose people? Does the Government intend to pro-vide compensation to the churches for those ser-vices? No, it does not. Instead, it confines itself toa gratuitously insulting attack by suggesting thatonly the unpaid labour of Aboriginal people hasbeen of any consequence in those mission areas ofthe State.

One can ask further: Why has there been thisconcerted attack on the missions? Why has aneffort been made to demean and degrade peoplewho are part of a system that has done more thananyone else in this Chamber, I suggest, includingthe humanists on the opposite side, to uplift theAboriginal people and make their future a littlemore assured'!

I repeat my earlier statement that both Mr Sea-man and the Burke Government assume,1I suggestincorrectly, that all Aborigines want to break theirties with the missions. As well, the impression hasbeen created that the church holds huge tracts Ofmtssion lands in the north of the State. What isthe truth? I will tell members. Some membersopposite know the truth but have sought to giveentirely the reverse impression-that is, that thechurches, including the Catholic church, arelandholders en masse.

At Balgo the Catholic mission holds a little over1 200 hectares of land. The church has voluntarilygiven, free of charge, a cattle station of 247 000hectares and worth over S I million to the Aborigi-

1987

1988 [COUNCIL]

nal community. But at Balgo the mission itselfholds 1 200 hectares.

At Beagle Bay the Catholic mission holds 4 000hectares and at Kalumburu it holds 404 hectares.At La Grange the Catholic mission holds 291hectares and at Lombardina it holds 200 hectares.In total, the Catholic church has a holding ofsome 6 200 hectares which, as anyone who knowsanything about the north of this State wouldknow, is a pinprick on the map. It is a falsity in theextreme to be peddling the suggestion that theCatholic church and Catholic missions in par-ticular are holders of vast amounts of land.

These points aside-even if the Governmentwere to turn around at this late stage and find away to accommodate the church just as it hasmiraculously been able to accommodate theminers and the pastoralists-l could not give mysanction to the Bill. If any future speakers want totell the House that my assumptions about themission land are wrong, let me ask them in ad-vance why the Premier could not give an un-equivocal statement to Bishop iobst and others.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Who were the others?

Hon. P. G. PENDAL: I will come to that.

The letter that was sent to the bishop on 16January this year, under the signature of thePremier, not only contained falsestatements-which we have come to expect fromthe head of this Government-but it also con-veniently contained statements the ambiguity ofwhich would surpass anything that has been seenin this Parliament. How convenient it is to writeback to a Catholic prelatc and have two bob eachway in order that the individual who is reading theletter does not know what the situation is. ThePremier said-

My Dear Bishop,

Thank you for your letter of 24thDecember 1984.

The only 'mission land' which will beclaimable by Aboriginals will be land whichhas been granted to a church, mission or re-ligious society for the purpose of ministeringto Aboriginals and is Still held by that church,mission or religious society as at 17thSeptember 1984....

This date, of course, is mentioned in the Bill. ThePremier continued-

I take that to exclude land granted forother missionary purposes as well as landgranted for a multiplicity of purposes even ifone of those purposes be for ministering toAboriginals (ie, if it is not a grant solely for

Aboriginals the land will not be available forclaim).

If the letter stopped at that point nobody couldhave great complaint, but the Premier is not satis-fied with giving anyone a relatively straightfor-ward statement because he continued as follows-

Each case will have to be decided on itsown merits and the historical records towhich you have referred will be relevant inthe determination of the factual issues. Thedecision will have to be made by the Aborigi-nal Land Commissioner as to whether theland falls within the ambit of the Act. ...

I am suggesting that the Government cannot haveit both ways. The Premier is either wrong in whathe said in his letter or he is wrong in what he saidvia his spokesman in the newspaper some twomonths later on 30 March 1984. Again it begs thequestion: Why would not the Catholic bishop, anybishop, or any individual be able to get a simpleanswer to a simple question? I guess it is one ofthose questions to which Government membersknow the answer in their hearts.

So often in debates in this House we have ourattention drawn to such things as the UnitedNations Charter and it is conveniently used tocondemn others whereby a government "takes anymeasures including legislative measures, designedto divide the population along racial lines by thecreation of separate reserves for the members of aracial group". This is not from a Liberal Partymanifesto, it is not produced by the AustralianLeague of Rights, it is not produced by the Cath-olic church and it is not produced by some nut inorder to bolster his argument. It is the declarationof the United Nations for which I do not oftenhave high regard, but which body is so oftenquoted by members from the other side of theHouse. However, that declaration cuts right acrossthe sort of legislation we now have before theHouse and despite its cutting across it, theGovernment is prepared to proceed with the legis-lation which does precisely what the UnitedNations condemns; that is, to condemn any legis-lative move that is designed to divide people inland groups because of racial background.

It would be hideous to think that we could everextend the argument for special land rights toother special rights as well. Why should we not dothat? For example, would the Governmentseriously consider the provision of special Aborigi-nal hospitals, special Aboriginal schools, or specialAboriginal post offices? Of course not,

In conclusion, the Bill is not only politicallyunpopular, but it is also morally repugnant. It ismorally repugnant for the very reasons used by

1988

[Tuesday, 16 Apr1 1985] 18

present-day activists to justify attacks on past poli-cies towards Aborigines. It is discriminatory and itdoes nothing, and will do nothing, to improve thelot of the Aboriginal people. It will provoke dis-cord and disharmony in a community that alreadyhas its fair share of those elements. It is paternal-istic in that it continues the white man's presump-tion that we all know what is best for the blackman.

What the solution is I do not know. However, Ido know that nothing I have beard, along with mycolleagues, in the land rights debate in the pasttwo years has any kind of authentic ring about it.We cannot bring people together by dividingthem. We cannot compensate one group of peopleby giving it 40 per cent of the land mass and thenpretend that the other group has lost notbing. Wecannot obliterate the prejudice of the past bybuilding certain and sure prejudices into the fu-ture.

It is historically inaccurate to pretend that noprogress has been made. The litany of legislativechanges contained in the back of the Seaman re-port itself is evidence to the contrary; that is, thatenormous progress has been achieved notwith-standing the failures.

There is no doubt in my mind that Aboriginesas a race are entitled to more progress in thefuture. I am sure land rights will not do that and Iwill oppose the Bill.

HON. ROBERT HETHERINGTON (South-East Metropolitan) [1.00 am.]: In rising to sup-port this Bill, I find it rather difficult to knowwhere to start because it seems to me that we havehad a great deal of emotion and not a great deal oflogic from the Hon. Phillip Pendal.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: But you say that every time.

Hon. ROBERT HETH-ERINGTON: I will sayit again. We have heard a great deal of false logicand a series of non sequiturs and a great deal ofinhumanity from Hon. Norman Moore.

Hon. N. F. Moore: What a lot of tripe.

Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: That ismy impression of his speech. I am talking abouthis speech, not about his heart.

Hon. N. F. Moore: You were talking about myinhumanity.

Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: I wastalking about the speech. I think it would be veryinteresting if I had the time to analyse his speech,but I do not want to. A person who talks about histotal moderation and then talks about the LaborParty's total qualifications ought to learn some-thing about the language and consider what it isall about.

I am worried about Mr Pendal's speech be-cause he seems to think that everyone on this sideof the House is a humanist. I find that an odddescription of the Premier who, I think, is a prac-tising Catholic like Mr Pendal. He would not beterribly interested in getting rid of mission build-ings. It is possible that under this legislation Abor-igines will claim mission lands. They will be Cath-olic Aborigines who will then remain with theirbishops and priests on that land. I do not knowthat this will be the case; it remains to be seen.The law has been written and, if enacted, will notbe subject to the judgment of the Premier. Thejudgment has to be that of the Aboriginal LandCommissioner.

I was very interested when Hon. DavidWordsworth quoted section 5I (xxvi) of the Con-stitution and its changing by referendum. I re-member that time well. I remember the great joyand pleasure that I got standing next to Liberalmembers outside the polling booths handing outhow-to-vote cards. The cards for both parties saidthe same thing. I remember the pleasure I gotfrom the fact that we had consensus on this issue.I remember the pleasure I had when the FraserGovernment agreed with the Labor Governmentthat had preceded it on the necessity and desir-ability for land rights in the Northern Territory.Perhaps the Northern Territory legislation has notproved to be perfect, but rather than throw out thebaby with the bath water I would agree with theLiberal Chief Minister of the Northern Territory,Mr Tuxworth, that our legislation is good legis-lation worthy of his support.

Mr Moore rather quickly slurred over the bit inthe Labor Party platform that said we would keepreviewing policies. The Labor Party keepsreviewing policies. We do not claim that once ourplatform is written it is final or the be-all and end-all. That platform does not have to be followedinto the future. We could change it. On this issue,we might change it in various ways. We will getgood laws for Aborigines only when we get con-sensus. I am one of those who hope that we mightget some consensus on this issue. We on this sideof the House have been accused of being hyp-ocritical for talking to a range of groups and theirspokesmen. We were also prepared to talk with theLiberal Party, had it been willing. I only wish thatthat would happen. I believe that one day it willhappen. I believe that one day our stance-i donot mean our detailed views--on Aboriginal landrights will be accepted by the Liberal Party. Ibelieve that because in a democracy attitudes willchange. I certainly hope it is true.

Section 51 (xxvi) had provided that one of thepowers that the Commonwealth Government had

1989

1990 COUNCIL)

was to make laws affecting the people of any raceother than the Aboriginal race of any State forwhom it was deemed necessary to make speciallaws. The bit about the Aboriginal race was re-moved unanimously. Both political parties, I thinkcorrectly, were in agreement on this. I give theLiberal Party due credit for that. It seemed tomany people at that time that in many Statesthere were discriminatory laws against Aboriginesand that the Commonwealth might need to makespecial laws for Aborigines.

I have risen mainly to say why I believe weshould have land rights legislation for Aborigines.Mr Moore said that we should not feel guiltyabout the past. He did not feel guilty because hepaid his taxes. I did not see how these two thingswere connected, but that is fine. I am glad thatpaying his taxes stops him feeling guilty. I do notwant him to feel guilty. I do not feel guilty. WhenI read the history of what we in Australia havedone to the Aborigines in the past, I feel revoltedand sickened, but there is not much good in goingback.

At present, historians are tending, after spend-ing many years celebrating what we did to settlethis country and how we just took over from theAborigines, to react. Historians are now pointingout the atrocities we committed against Aborigi-nes throughout Australia. However, they are notexpressing the very real fears and worries of thesettlers who found themselves in new countriesand quite often acted in atrocious manners fromfear. We will get the balance one day.

The history of our treatment of the Aboriginalpeople of Australia has not been pretty. However,let us not feel guilty about it. We need not say thatwe will not feel guilty or that we will forget ourhistory, but should look to our history to informthe present. I do not believe that the Aboriginesare just another ethnic group in this community.They are different, as the Hon. David Wordsworthpointed out. I want to stress this more than he did.They were the people who were found here first.They lived in this country from between 30 000 to60 000 years before white settlement. That figureis still being debated. They may have been herelonger than 60 000 years before white settlement,but the shortest estimate seems to be 30 000 years.

The Aborigines had a balance with the environ-ment and developed it in their own way. They usedto fire the bush to get pasture for kangaroos sothey could hunt. They did a range of things usingstone weapons because they were all they had.They did not domesticate animals because theydid not have the kinds of animals that could bedomesticated. They did not do the things that weredone in Europe, because they did not have the

environment or background, but they had a welldeveloped, intelligent culture and lived in equilib-rium with the environment. What we brought tothe Aborigines was not all good.

Is it true, and I pay due tribute to the fact, thatthe missions quite often helped to alleviate theharm, to quieten down the enmity, to succour theAborigines and treat the diseases we had broughtwith us. It is also true that many of the missionstations Europeanised the Aborigines and tried todestroy their culture, and for this reason manyAborigines resented them. It is true that Aborigi-nes used to speak one way in the days when no-body would take many of their stories aboutsacred sites seriously, and now that we are pre-pared to listen we find there is a richness of Abor-iginal culture that when I was a boy we did notrealise existed, Of course that was a long timeago. I did not even realise it existed in the 1 940sand 1950s. It is only from the 1970s onwards thatI have become aware of the richness of Aboriginalculture. We people who believe in land rights, andsome of us believe in them sincerely, do not believein special Aboriginal post offices. As far as I knowpost offices were never part of the dreamrtime andwere never incorporated in the Aboriginal culturalor religious beliefs. If Mr Pendal can show me that30 000 years ago the Aborigines had sacred sitesof post offices, perhaps we will have special Abor-iginal post offices.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: You are thicker than Ithought.

Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: MrPendal is not too bright either. I was pointing outto the honourable gentleman that with his talk ofspecial hospitals and special post offices he wasdragging a red herring across the trail.

Mr Moore on the one hand does not want us togive Aborigines any different rights from ours, buton the other hand when we do give them land hesays that we should provide land for individuals. Ithought this was the one thing about Aboriginalculture, that land is owned by the community. Ipoint out to Mr Pendal that under this legislationno Aboriginal group is forced to apply for land. Itis permissive legislation; it is not compulsory. Theycan please themselves. Under this legislation weare not doing what is done in South Africa; that is,forcing Aborigines because of their race to go intoBantu stands or homelands and requiring them tohave passes to get out again. We are allowingAborigines to own land in a way suitable to theirown culture and if they want to integrate with uswe would welcome them. We have gone awayfrom the view that Aborigines should assimilateand be exactly like white men. We have acceptedthe view that they should integrate and we should

1990


treat them as equal human beings developing theirown nation, notions, beliefs, and culture.

I do not want anybody to feel unduly guiltyabout it but rather to recognise the fact that wedestroyed Aboriginal culture. It was a Stone Ageculture quite unlike our modern culture, It wasvery much like the culture of Europe at the time ofthe cave dweller. In other words, the Aborigineshad a culture similar to the one from which wehave come. I do not say the culture from which wehave "progressed" because I think we use thatword far too easily. We have developed, changed,and become different. We have a different view ofour relationship with the land.

I suggest that English, European and Asian mi-grants who have come to Australia have a differ-ent view of the land and their relationship with itthan have the Aborigines. These migrants are alldifferent and more like one another than they arelike the Aborigines in their relationship to theland.

We are trying to say to the Aborigines that ifthey feel that they want their own land, theyshould claim it and if this will allow them dignityto get back their own culture and find their ident-ity as human beings, we welcome it. We are notsaying that this will solve all the Aborigines' prob-lems because it will not. I am at present workingtowards other solutions for problems of Aboriginesliving in the metropolitan area. I do not knowwhether they will be accepted or rejected by myown party or this Parliament, if they come here. Iknow a whole range of things need to be done forthe Aboriginal population. I cannot help knowingit when I look at the Aborigines settled in myelectorate and when we deal with their problemsin my electorate office. We must look to see whatwe can do, and we regard land rights as one partof solving the problems of Aborigines.

If we do this, and accept this positive view, letus help the Aborigines who want to get back totheir own culture and to their belonging to theland. If we can all agree that we should do thisand discuss the way to do it properly, instead ofdemonstrating the negativism we had from Hon.N. F. Moore tonight, we will be moving in theright direction. I was sorry to hear the negati vismfrom Hon. P. G. Pendal. I thought better of him.

Hon. P. 0. Pendal: You always say that aboutme too.

Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: I willstop saying it soon because I will be completelydisillusioned and feel he has nothing but negativ-ism to offer. However, I am still hoping to convertthe honourable gentleman. I always believe he is

really decent underneath it all and that decencywill come out some day my way.

We have heard a whole litany of what can hap-pen under this legislation: We will lose two-thirdsof the sea contiguous to the Kimberley. Whatnonsense! Two-thirds is claimable, but membersknow that it will not be granted.

Hon. N. F. Moore: Why not?Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: Because

it does not make sense. As far as I am concerned agreat deal of nonsense has been spoken. I havemore trust in the sense of the Aboriginal com-missioner than members of the Opposition do. Iam not looking at nasty plots.

Hon. N. F. Moore: You cannot prove a thing.Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: I cannot

prove anything and neither can Hon. N. F. Moore.Hon. N. F. Moore: Therefore my arguments

have just as much validity as yours.Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: The dif-

ference is that I know that the Premier is a man ofgoodwill.

An Opposition member: He is running scared.Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: He is not

running scared at all. We were asked earlier why,when this proposal did not seem to be very popu-lar, the Government was introducing land rightslegislation. I say that on a matter of principle wefeel we should try to achieve our aims. We havetried long and hard and tried to negotiate witheverybody who would listen. We would havenegotiated with the Liberal Party. I do not believeevery Catholic church will be whipped away orthat the High Court judge who will be an Aborigi-nal commissioner will grant all the land to Abor-igines. It is not a matter of practical politics and itwill not work that way. I do not believe that 46 percent of Western Australia will be granted to Abor-igines and even if 46, 47, or 48 per cent weregranted there would still be plenty for the rest ofus. I do not believe it will happen and I see noreason why it should happen. I see every reasonwhy it will all be claimed because belonging to atrade union party I know about the ambit claimand negotiation. Ultimately commonsense is likelyto prevail. I know, as every other member knows,that if this legislation were passed we would in duecourse find fault with it and modify it.

I think Mr Pendal made a very good Committeestage speech. I only wish he would let this Bill gointo Committee where we could debate the detailhe was discussing and we might get somethingdone about it.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: Which is more than whatyou are planning.

1991

1992 [COUNCIL]

Hon. ROBERT HETHERINGTON: I aminterested in seeing why we should have a Bill likethis. At this stage of the night, when I have heardthe other speeches, there is not much point intalking about the details of the Bill. I was hopingto attract some spark of goodwill on the other sideof the House, when I might take the first step in adevelopment which might lead to a bipartisan ap-proach to this matter one day. I am quite serioushere-, we have to do it. We do not have to say wewill look after Aborigines; that is paternalism. Weshould look to see if there is a way where we canhelp Aborigines to help themselves and developthemselves.

Of course we will make mistakes, as we havedone in the past. Mr Pendal and I know that withthe best will in the world we have made terriblemistakes. We are now trying to rectify those mis-takes. If the honourable gentleman thinks about ithe may find this is where we could rectify some ofthe mistakes-not all of them, because we havemuch 10 do before we can walk proudly when wethink of the way in which we are dealing with ourAboriginal people.

At present they are the poorest members of oursociety, as my colleague Kay Hallahan pointedout. There is a higher percentage of Aborigines inthe gaols than their numbers warrant, and thereare all sorts of reasons for that. It may be thatthey are not being treated equally under our laws.

When one talks about equality, Aborigines weretreated equally according to the law whenEuropeans first settled the country. Seeing our lawwas that one should own blocks of land and puthorses and cattle on them, we dispossessed theAborigines of their land to treat them equally.That kind of equality merely destroyed them.

Let us now get back to the kind of equalitywhich will allow them to have real dignity andequality. To do this we must have unequal laws tomake them equal.

This is not apartheid. This is not forced segre-gation. I hope I live to see the day-which gives usabout another 33 years-when the Aboriginalpopulation is integrated with our community-not.assimilated but integrated-and we treat Aborigi-nes as human beings in this society of ours.

I commend the Bill. I ask members opposite tothink if they might vote for the second reading,even if they do not vote for the third reading, andhave a look at it in Committee. If they are notprepared to do that I ask them to read some of ourhistory and think about the special position of theAboriginal people and the treatment we need togive them to make them properly equal.

HON. E. J. CIIARLTON (Central) [l,2 5 a.m.]:Undoubtedly a great many of the comments madetonight have been very extreme. While I can agreeto a great extent with some of the comments madeby Government members, they are over-simplify-ing a great problem which confronts this nation indealing with the problems of Aboriginal people.

I may not have had a lot of experience of Abor-iginal transition in the northern areas of the State,but I have certainly in the southern half of theState. When we talk about the Aboriginal LandBill it seems to me to deal with a very great area ofthe Aboriginal needs. 11 deals only with a smallminority of people but with a large area of land.

The Government has gone too far and way outof bounds in trying to deal with a serious problemin what it has prescribed in the Bill. The situationis undoubtedly concerned with the special needs ofthe people as far as the allocation of land is con-cerned. The first requirement would have to bethat this small group of Aboriginal people speci-fled in the Bill needs to have freehold land. TheBill does not do that. It gives an opportunity forthem to claim lanid in the areas of Crown land. Sothe First part of the Bill does niot give continuity; itdoes not give stability to these people who havebeen disfranchised over a great many years.

When we hear comments about the great dis-service to the Aboriginal people and the way inwhich they were treated at the time Of the firstsettlement of Australia by white men, thaL is un-doubtedly true. But that has happened the worldover. People the world over have been dispossessedof their land, and a great many atrocities haveoccurred and are still occurring. One reads in thepaper of 22 million people who have been killedsince the Second World War.

Putting forward a piece of legislation like thepresent Bill to overcome what has happened in the200 years which have elapsed since the changeswere made in this country does not go anywherenear to overcoming the problem; it creates furtherproblems. The day will come when we will seelegislation before the Parliament which will dosomething towards overcoming the problems thesmall minority of Aboriginal people face in thevast country areas.

What worries me, as well as the view I havementioned, is that the genuine Aboriginal peopleare being very wrongly advised by a great numberof so-called advisers. The points which have beenmentioned on both sides of the House tonightabout the areas which will be claimed, who will beclaiming them, and the groups of Aboriginalpeople who will be involved, do not give me anyconfidence that just because of the problems of the

1992


past we have to do what is proposed in this legis-lation. I have no confidence that as a result we willhave a group of people able to hold their heads upin the twenty-first century, feeling they have over-come the problems of the past. We are trying toovercome those problems by creating many more.

When we talk about the problems of the Abor-iginal people, we can see what happens whengroups of Aboriginal people are given houses orhealth services to overcome some of their prob-lems. One can do it in that way, but the problemsof the past are not overcome just by giving suchthings to these people.

With regard to the land, the genuine peopleshould have land; it should be freehold, and itshould be through their heritage or through theirhistory that they can claim some land and be giventitle to it.

As I see it, though, this legislation does not dothat.

Over a number of years Governments inAustralia have not performed very well in theirdealings with Aborigines. The previous speakerreferred to the number of Aboriginal people ingaol, the drinking problems of Aborigines, and thelike. Tonight we heard about the great step whichwas taken when Aborigines were given equalrights and the host of implications which were partof that. However, a great number of Aborigineshave suffered as a result of the granting of thoseequal rights. I do not suggest that those rightsshould not have been granted, but the way inwhich it occurred meant that in some ways theresult was worse than the previous position.

It is clear a similar situation will obtain if thislegislation is passed. However, that does not meanthat one should bury one's head in the sand and donothing about the matter. A small group of peopleis involved in this legislation and it is of no use tomake claimable a vast area of the State. Somepeople say that the land which is claimable isuseless, therefore, we should give it to the Aborigi-nes; but that is a very narrow-minded outlook andtakes into account only the position today. It istrue that 200 years ago one would have madevarious suggestions about land which was con-sidered then to be useless.

I would like to see Aborigines given land whichwas of use to them so that they could establish astable lifestyle. It must be understood also that no-one can live in the past and time does not standstill. lust because members of the Aboriginal racehave a long history in respect of the land in thiscountry and some people believe that Aborigineshave not progressed-for want of a betterword-it cannot be taken for granted that, if we

give them an area of land, they will live as they did200 years ago. They will not and, indeed, they donot want to do so.

If a commonsense approach is taken to this mat-ter, Aborigines will combine the use of the landwith aspects of their culture to achieve what theyconsider to be and what everyone else in the com-munity sees as a better way of life.

This legislation will do nothing to overcome theproblems of Aboriginal people. The Bill seeks toallocate land to a group of people in an endeavourto undo some of the wrongs perpetrated in thepast. It is clear from past experience that suchmeasures are never successful and it is unlikelysuch a measure would achieve success in the fu-ture. If we continue to look at the matter in thatlight, no worthwhile legislation will be forth-coming.

We must analyse the position of the peopleinvolved. It should be remembered that today fewpeople want to live in the country. Daily peopleare moving out of country areas and are headingfor the cities. This applies to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. That trend is occurring becauseit is easier and cheaper to live in the city than inthe country and better facilities are available.

Only a very small minority of people want tolive in the outback of Australia whether it be inthe Kimberley or 100 miles out of Perth. Thatminority should be given the opportunity to selectland to which they may have freehold title. Thatland should be purchased through the Federal De-partment of Aboriginal Affairs, by means of aheritage Act, or in some other way. However, ifwe seek to solve the problems of the past in themanner set out in the Bill, we will not achieve thepositive result which is desired by the great ma-jority of Australians.

HON. V. J. FERRY (South-West) [1.35 am.]:I will not take up a great deal of time in thisdebate, because many points have been canvassedalready. However, I shall record my position inregard to the Bill. I speak with the sure knowledgethat the people in South-West Province opposelegislation of this nature; I speak with the sureknowledge that the great majority of WesternAustralians will not have a bar of it; and I speakfrom my personal point of view which is that whatthe Government seeks to do is not right for thecitizens of Western Australia at present or in thefuture.

We cannot change the past or turn back time.Indeed, we cannot change the course of history. Ithas been said that unallocated Crown land in theSouth-West Land Division is the subject of exam-ination by local authorities. They have been given

1993

1994 COUNCIL]

a certain time within which to determine whetherthey have a legitimate purpose for such land.

One would assume that any land which is notdesignated by local authorities would be the resi-due and what might be described as "useiessland". If it is the Government's intention to givevirtually worthless land to a race of people toimprove their standard of living, such an intentionis based on rather strange reasoning.

One could carry such a suggestion to the ulti-mate conclusion that the whole of Australiashould be given back to the Aboriginal race. As Isaid, we cannot turn back the pages of history.The Australian population is made up of peoplewith many different racial backgrounds. There isno hope for this nation unless its people worktogether as one race.

I do not intend to sell the people of WesternAustralia down the drain by supporting legislationwhich is based on race alone. 1, along with othermembers, have seen a great deal of misery in othercountries which exists as a result of racial prob-lems. It is not necessary to cite the countries wherethis has happened in the past, still happens, andwill continue to happen in the future. I do notwant my fellow Australians of whatever ethnicorigin to suffer in this way; therefore, I oppose theBill.

HON. PETER DOWDING (North-Ministerfor Employment and Training) (1-39 a.mil: TheLegislative Council has a reputation for conserva-tism. Over the years it has established a very sorryhistory in respect of Aboriginal affairs. In its de-bates, the Council has been the recipient of someof the worst and most racist attitudes that haveever been expressed in public life in WesternAustralia. When we have debated issues aboutcitizenship and about votes for Aborigines andabout votes for women, the Legislative Councilhas been at the forefront of the conservativegroups which have opposed those reforms.

The speech tonight by Hon. Norman Mooreillustrates the deep conservatism that resides insome sections of the Western Australian LiberalParty and illustrates further the rigid, narrow, anduncompromising attitudes that Mr NormanMoore and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr BillHassell, have espoused in this debate. It differsinterestingly from some of the attitudes expressedby other Opposition members tonight. But the Op-position voice, as expressed by Mr NormanMoore, is a sort of anti-Aboriginal Thatcherism, adestructive, suspicious, and unbendable attitude,arrogantly certain of the right of the narrow viewsthat Mr Moore and the Liberal Party in WA haveespoused.

There has been no evidence of any willingness toeven listen sensibly to the debate about Aboriginalland rights. There has been no evidence that since1983 the Liberal Party in WA has taken any stepsat all either to understand the debate or to partici-pate in it. That augers badly for this State shouldthe Liberal Party ever return to power, should theMoore-Hassell axis ever come to power. Fortu-nately some people in the Liberal Party do not likethe deep and rigid conservatism we have heardtonight.

It is regrettable that the Opposition never oncementioned the frustration and the unfulfilledneeds of Aboriginal people in this State for accessto land. Members opposite never once mentionedthe history that was so conveniently summarisedin the last chapter of the Seaman report. We didnot hear Mr Moore make reference to those issues.He preferred to deal with the past as though it wasso distant as to be cushioned from the reality ofthe present. Nothing could be further from thetruth.

The reason that Aboriginal people in this Stateby and large are landless is the direct result ofspecific Government policies which recognisedwhat was happening to Aboriginal people andsought to ameliorate the effects of that byintroducing special laws to give Aboriginal peoplelimited rights.

The special laws contained in the Land Actwhich give Aboriginal people the right to moveand hunt in traditional ways over unenclosed pas-toral leases is a recognition that by granting pas-toral leases to non-Aboriginal people the Aborigi-nal people were being dispossessed of an elementof the title they had held since time immemorial.The need to protect the rights of Aboriginal peoplewas recognised. Mr Moore conveniently glossedover those issues.

It is not irrelevant to consider in the context ofthis legislation why it is that Aboriginal people inthe Kimberley make up over 40 per cent of thepopulation yet have less than 10 per cent of thepastoral leases in the area. It is not because ofhistory. It is a direct result of the policies of suc-cessive Governments, whether Labor or Liberal,which have over the last 100 years sought to de-prive Aboriginal people in the Kimberley of accessor title to their land. There is no gainsaying thatposition. It is regrettable that in 1985, one cannotpersuade the representative of the Liberal Partyon the issue of Aboriginal affairs to open his eyesand accept reality.

Who has had to play the role of making sensiblesuggestions to modify the demands of people withconflicting views of Aboriginal land ownership

1994

[Tuesday, 16 Apr1 1985J199

and entitlement? The Opposition has flot playedany part in this process. The Opposition hassought to avoid its responsibilities by the artificeof suggesting that the Seaman inquiry's terms ofreference were so narrow that there was nothingabout which the Opposition could make sub-missions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That issimply a gross misrepresentation of the position.The Opposition itself has said that it would notremove from Aboriginal people the entitlementthat those people have to reserves presently vestedin them. Surely that was an issue which couldhave been put to the Seaman inquiry; that is, asubmission that no Aboriginal land grant shouldbe made in excess of the existing reserves. But thatwas not a position the Liberal Party chose to take.Instead, it chose to hide behind an artifice and notdeclare its position or participate in a sensible,informed, and compassionate view of where weWestern Australians are in 1985. The LiberalParty chose to erect the barricades and hide be-hind them.

It has apparently slipped past Hon. NormanMoore that his own party introduced the Aborigi-nal Communities Act of 1979. That Act was apiece of legislation designed to introduce speciallaws for Aboriginal people only, on special areasof land only. Nothing could be more of a lawdesigned specially for Aboriginal people than theAboriginal Communities Act. The architect ofthat piece of legislation has apparently beenignored by Hon. Norman Moore, because we didnot hear one reference to that Act.

The Aboriginal Heritage Act provides speciallaws for special people and for the religion ofspecial people-to wit, the Aborigines. We had anamendment to the Aboriginal Heritage Act in1980 and it was supported by Hon. NormanMoore and I-on. Phil Pendal. But we heard nary aword tonight about that special law for specialpeople and their special religion.

It was put up by Mr Moore that the verysuggestion of a Bill for land for Aboriginal peoplewas racist and discriminatory. Apparently he hadno difficulty in supporting an amendment to theAboriginal Heritage Act or supporting the Abor-iginal Community Act.

It is the utter hypocrisy or the position taken bythe Liberal Party in this debate which is sodisappointing. There is no doubt that when wedeal with a conflicting land use, be it a conflictbetween the farmers and the miners, between theurban dwellers and the farmers, between thepeople who want to use the Swan Valley for grow-ing grapes and those who wish to use it for running

horses or for residential subdivisions, there mustbe mechanisms for resolving those conflicts.

It is inappropriate to simply ignore the realities,which are that a substantial group within the com-munity of Western Australia has by Statute, upuntil the mid 1950s, and thereafter by practiceand certainly through economic deprivation, beenunable to retain, recover, reclaim or utilise landwith which its members have traditional affinity.

No group within the community of WesternAustralia over the history of this State has beendiscriminated against on the basis of race otherthan the Aboriginal people. No other group in oursociety can stand up today in this way and say thatit is what it is because of the events of history bothrecent and past. No group is so repeatedly subjectto racial discrimination in 1985 as are the Abor-iginal people of this State.

It matters not whether they are the "problem"Aborigines as some people have referred to themtonight or whether they are perfectly respectable,perfectly sensible, and perfectly behaved models ofmock-white people. It matters not. If they areAboriginal, that they are liable to suffer discrimi-nation.

If they are Aboriginal it is likely their parentsare poor because they were made poor by the lawsof this State. If they are Aboriginal it is likelytheir parents will be ill-educated and in manycases they themselves will not have had an oppor-tunity to go to school. It is the case that in 1985the Education Department, to its shame, is notable to teach in any school in WA with a qualifiedteacher, the lingua franca of the area in whichthat school exists.

It is a fact that white people in WA, by tra-dition, by legislation, and by practice, have repeat-edly discriminated against Aboriginal people inevery single form imaginable.

Is it proposed that this piece of legislation whichis designed to have a minimal effect on the widercommunity, which is likely to impact not at all onthe wider community, is racist because it gives asmall advantage to a number of Aboriginal peoplein this State? What is so appalling about theposition that we have heard tonight from this reac-tionary group of Liberals as expressed by Hon.Norman Moore, is that it is utterly out of kilterwith the majority view expressed by their ownpolitical organisation throughout Australia.

Even the Premier of Queensland-God rest hissoul-who is not a man for whom 1 have a lot oftime politically, is prepared to introduce a piece oflegislation which recognises the special position ofAboriginal people in relation to their land. Thereis no doubt there is plenty to criticise in the

1995

1996 [COUNCIL]

Queensland Aboriginal land legislation, but it isnevertheless a recognition of the rights of thesepeople. The Opposition is not prepared to makethis recognition that special rights andentitlements should be given to Aboriginal peoplein that State.

The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory issupportive of the WA Government's land rightslegislation. It is his view that the legislation isgood and that it drives a reasonable course be-tween the rights of Aboriginal people and those ofthe rest of the community. It is his view that thereis a sense of equality and justice about theobjectives of this legislation. That is not a viewshared by the conservative elements of AustralianLiberals situated in Western Australia.

Furthermore, at a State level in SouthAustralia, legislation was introduced by the Lib-eral Party to give Aboriginal people in thePitjantjatjara area land rights far in excess of therights which are proposed in this legislation.

Furthermore, there is a clear commitment inFederal Liberal Party policy towards Aboriginalland rights in Australia; yet the conservative el-ements, the d eep "Right" in the deep west, areprepared to fight against it on the most spuriousground imaginable; that is some appeal to racism.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: Eighty per cent of the publicsupport us.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: There is no doubtthat the racist expressions we have heardtonight-

Hon. Kay Hallahan interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon. Kay Hallahanrepeatedly defies the orders of this House. Sheknows that she is not permitted to interject andthat she certainly is not permitted to interjectwhen she is sitting in another member's seat. Isuggest that she rectify that situation.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: This deeply con-servative group within the Liberal Party hassought to persuade the public that there is some-thing inherently racist in this legislation. Theyhave sought to make the most grave distortions ofthe truth in order to achieve this objective.

Let me take first of all this concentration on thesort of statistics that Hon. Norman Mooretrundled out and which their copywriters haveinserted in the dreadful alarmist pamphlets thathave circulated in the State over the last fewyears. The suggestion is made that less than threeper cent of the population of Western Australiawill own more than 40 per cent of the land mass ofthe State. That is an utterly ridiculous statistic

because it has nothing to do with the legislationbefore this House.

Hon. N. F. Moore: It has everything to do withit.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: Vestey Corporationowned a land mass the size of New South Wales,Was this indicative of some gross disparity ofright, some disproportionate entitlement of owner-ship? I have never heard I-en. Norman Mooregrizzling about that, or about Mr Peter Sherwinwho owned, and perhaps still owns, areas of theKimberley and the Northern Territory equalalmost to the entire area of the pastoral stations ofthe Kimberley. Did we ever hear an objectionfrom the Opposition?

Here we are permitting, under the Land Act,one man to own a large land mass and I did nothear such a suggestion. Is it suggested that be-cause one group or company owns a large mass ofland under some title that something evil isinvolved? The reality is that one group ofAboriginal people may own less than a hectare ofland. A group of seven Aboriginal people mayhave an entitlement to the entire central reserve.

O f cou rse, it mnust alIways be re mem bered i n thedebate about the volume and area of land that weare dealing with, that the Liberal Party itself willnot retain the boundaries of existing reserves, sowe look at a position where something in excess of21 million hectares are to remain owned, or thetitle to which is to be owned, by or on behalf of theAboriginal community of Western Australia. It ispure hokus pokus to suggest that there is some-thing evil about a percentage of the State beingheld by a certain number of people. It is irrelevantto the real debate of whether or not Aboriginalpeople should have a right to a title because oftheir traditional links with the land or their longassociation with it and their Aboriginality, andthat is the issue that the Liberal Party has con-ceded is correct.

The central issue of the legislation is whetherAboriginal people, by reason of their Aboriginalityand their particular association with atn area ofland, should have title to it, and the Oppositionhas conceded that that should be the case. TheOpposition has conceded that the reserves shouldremain vested in or on behalf of the Aboriginalpeople of the State.

The other element of this conservative wing, theright wing of the Liberal Party, is of course ourown equivalent of the PR machine-Hon. PhillipPeridal. His passionate defence of Bishop Jobsiwas very interesting. No doubt the good Bishopflew down from the Kimberley and wound upHon. Phillip Pendal with an expression that Hon.

1996

iTuesday, 16 Apr1 19851 19

Phillip Pendal thought was an expression or thegeneral voice of the Catholic Church in WesternAustralia.

Hon. P, G. Pendal: No, you mucked it up again.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: With all due re-spect to I-on. Phillip Pendal, let me inform himthat I was in the Kimberley as recently as lastFriday and was approached by five separate seniormembers of the Roman Catholic Church organis-ation there. These people were universally opposedto it-they were embarrassed and concerned-bythe views that Bishop Jobs( put in the newspaper;they dissociated themselves entirely from them,and said that it was the view of the CatholicChurch, with very few exceptions in theKimberley, that the stance of Bishop Jobst wasentirely unjustified and incorrect and that the Ab-original people had a right to decide whether ornot the church should remain for their spiritualbenefit and comfort. They also believe, because oftheir relationship with the Aboriginal people ofthe Kimberley, that in most, if not all, of the areasin which they can offer spiritual ministrations, theAboriginal people would wish them to remain.They also acknowledged that if Bishop Jobstcontinued the path that he took and had takenover a number of years, he would receive an ever-diminishing welcome.

Hon. P. G. Pendal interjected.

The PRES IDENT: Order!

Hon. PETER DOWDING: The Roman Cath-olic Church-certainly its hiera rchy-al mostwithout exception, approves of this legislation. Theview of the missions is that the Aboriginal peoplehave a right to decide whether churches shouldremain or not, and despite the valiant objections ofBishop Jobst to prevent that democratic processproceeding, it has proceeded in many communitiesand the church has been welcomed, in the main, ina spiritual capacity so long as it is understood thatit is welcomed in its spiritual capacity and not in acolonial capacity. That distinction is one thatBishop Jobst, with all due respect to the order,finds very difficult to understand.

I-on. P. G. Pendal: What did your Governmentdo about that?

Hon. PETER DOWDING: Quite frankly, theregrettable aspect of Mr Pendal's racism as he hasexpressed it tonight is his own inability to under-stand that Aboriginal people might have a point ofview, and the point of view that they might wish toput is that the church is welcome to stay so long asthat which was given to the Aboriginal people viathe church is available to be claimed by the Abor-iginal people. Those gifts, bequests, allowances,and payments that were given to the church for

and on behalf of the Aboriginal people of WesternAustralia in the relevant areas ought to be avail-able to those people and not withheld from them.

It is also remarkable that so many members inthis Chamber have suddenly got some sort oflegislative amnesia. Because we are dealing with aBill which has "Aboriginal" included in its title,suddenly there is a suggestion that, as a matter ofprinciple, we ought not legislate for any specificgroup in the community. I invite members to readthe index to the Statutes of Western Australia,and they will find legislation relating to the potatogrowers of the south-west, the Preston Road dis-trict returned soldiers, the Roman CatholicChurch, and the Returned ServicesLeague-there are hundreds of examples of piecesof legislation for specific groups in this communitywho, for one reason or another, seek to have theirentitlement, right, or need, recognised by thisHouse. So, it is absurd to suggest that because thispiece of legislation is not of universal application,it is somehow racist or unfair.

The fact is that the Opposition has muddled itsown logic. It has conceded the Aboriginalentitlement to land through its acknowledgmentand maintenance of the reserves system. It is con-fused, because apparently it agrees with havingseparate land for Aborigines; but neverthelesswhen one piece of legislation seeks to pull some ofthese principles together, it shies away and de-clines to discuss even the principle of it.

The other aspect of Mr Moore's rather petulantspeech-characteristically unwilling to give theGovernment any kudos for the very significantefforts it has made to reach a position which willprogress us into the twentieth century-is the un-charitable view that he took of efforts to acknowl-edge the position of local authorities and the like.The suggestion of a sort of McCarthyite fear thatsomething else was around the corner, and so sup-porters of this legislation had been duped by thePremier, was of course nonsense. The reality isthat the move the Government is making is toplace the position of land held by Aboriginalpeople as far as practicable on a par with land heldby other people. Given the special needs and thespecial characteristics of the title we were speak-ing of, we nevertheless sought to put it on as fair aposition As possible with other landholding rights.Certainly, from the point of view of the localauthorities, we were to see a move towards givingthem the option of rating the land and being ableto recover the rates in a variety of ways short ofthe sale of that land.

The interesting thing is that so many of theshires in the Country Shire Councils Associationsupport the legislation, but the majority of the

1997

1998 COUNC IL]

shires in the wheatbelthe area which would feelthe least impact of the Aboriginal Land Bill, theareas of Western Australia which would beminimally affected by the legislation that we areasked to pass tonight-were opposed to the legis-lation; but the shires in the north of the Statewere, by and large, supportive of it.

I was at a gathering of tourist interests in Derbya fortnight ago, and another of the PIA at whichwere all of the pastoralists in the West Kimberleyin Derby last Thursday; and there was a verysubstantial feeling that this legislation was an op-portunity for Western Australians to address thepresent needs, rights, and attitudes of both Abor-iginal and non-Aboriginal people. The people wereafraid that the Liberal Party would blow it forthem. I regret that it appears from the speechestonight that they were right.

It is not an odd thing that the Pastoralists andGraziers Association, when passing a motion as anorganisation dealing with pastoral property land-holders, would limit its concurrence to the Billwith the rider that it is supported inasmuch as itrelates to any conflict with its professionalinterests, as it were, in my view, it would be quiteinappropriate for it to express any other view as anorganisation representing pastoralists. Hon.Norman Moore cannot avoid the fact that thePastoralists and Graziers Association supports thislegislation; and by and large its members are thepeople who are at the interface between the Abor-iginal people who are the subject of this legislationand the wider community. Members of the PGAhave supported this legislation.

It is also interesting that those people havesupported the provisions for excisions. They arehappy with the provisions of this legislation forexcisions for Aboriginal communities. It is a non-sense for Mr Moore to suggest that he has anyright to protect their interests further than theywish them to be protected. It is quite interestingthat when Mr Moore focused on the discussionabout the excision powers under this Bill, he didnot raise for a moment the question of the dislo-cation of Aboriginal people when the pastoralleases were granted and when they weresubsequently enclosed. His only interest in the de-bate tonight was to raise the issue of dislocation ofpastoralists if and when excisions were granted.Even Hon. Norman Moore should know that whenthe Land Act was passed, a provision whichentitled Aboriginal people to roam and to hunt onunenclosed pastoral land meant effectively thatthe Aboriginal people had the run of almost theentire pastoral lease. At the turn of the century,and until the last 20 years, it was never the casethat pastoral leases were fenced or enclosed. The

only areas that were enclosed were, traditionally,the homesteads or substantial improvements likeshearing sheds. When that piece of legislation wasenacted so many years ago, it meant that pastoralpeople were granted a lease which did not inter-fere with the traditional rights of the Aboriginalpeople.

Apparently Hon. Norman Moore is not evenprepared to recognise the effluxion of time and thechanges of practice in the pastoral industry whichsee the need to revise those laws. Effectively, somuch of pastoral land is enclosed now that theseprovisions no longer have any meaning, althoughit is still the case that the Aboriginal people in myelectorate and in Mr Moore's utilise hunting andfood gathering as a very important social activityand as a very important aspect of their socialcohesiveness as well as the economic utilisation ofthe land. They have been deprived of that econ-omic utilisation, and that makes them even moredependent on the welfare state.

Members might be interested to know that adetailed study was done of the economic returnfrom an area of common in the Northern Terri-tory called the Borroloola Common. The Aborigi-nal community had used the Borroloola Commonto hunt and gather food for themselves as part oftheir ordinary day-to-day activities. In order tomake a decision on whether that land should behanded over for pastoral grazing, it was assessedthat the common could return $100000 each yearby way of return from pastoral activities. Whenthe value of the food gathered from the BorroloolaCommon was as sessed-the value of the actualfood collected by Aboriginal people in their nor-mal social utilisation of the common-it had avalue of $2 million. So, there was a very signifi-cant economic benefit of which the Aboriginalpeople would be deprived if the areas of land onwhich they have customarily gathered food werefenced off.

We are effectively denying Aborigines access tothe vast areas of pastoral stations. and since theOpposition has so much of a problem with thespecial provisions relating to national parks, weare denying them the economic utilisation of thoseareas. Yet Hon. Norman Moore rather scathinglyurges themn to stop being welfare recipients.

In relation to his comments about the $2 billionthat has been given to Aboriginal people, I pointout that he wrapped that figure in a very con-venient way that ignores reality. He lives in themetropolitan area and is the recipient of millionsof dollars of value that is poured every year intothe metropolitan area. The Aboriginal componentis for water supplies, houses, roads, education.health, and the things that people in the cities and

1998


towns take as a matter of course and would bemost offended if someone added them up andsuggested they were all bludgers on the system.

The town of Kununurra was costed at about $20million a year to run in order to support the Ordscheme and the town. Yet no-one suggested therewas some sort of bludging aspect in that. WhenMr Moore deals with Aborigines his true colourscome out and he chooses to degrade them in theeyes of the community.

Hon. N. F. Moore: That is untrue.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: It was interestingtonight also to hear the veiled threat that thisconservative and deeply right-wing member of theLiberal Party chose to raise in the debate-thatthe Liberal Party would have a look at the issue ofentry onto Aboriginal reserves. The Liberal Partyapparently objects to the trespass provisions beingappropriately applicable to Aboriginal land. Yet itwas the Liberal Party which passed the trespasslaws in this Parliament. Is it to be said that Abor-iginal people are to have a lesser right to preventtrespass than others? Apparently it is.

I regret to hear how little progress people likeMr Moore have made towards a sensible assess-ment of the issues. I was interested to hear fromsome other members of the Opposition views Iwould describe as perhaps misinformed, perhapsill-educated, but at least views expressing a con-cern that perhaps we had not proceeded down theright path to date and needed to review our poli-cies. We did not hear any of that from Hon.Norman Moore who becomes isolated from eventhe moderate wing of his own political party.

If ever there was an illustration of the need foreducation and understanding on these issues itcame from Hon. David Wordsworth. I think hesaid there were only three white people in theKimberley in the 1980s; I assure him things aredifferent. I assume he meant the 1880s. The hard-ship experienced by the first white settlers in theKimberley is well documented. The hardship ex-perienced by Aboriginal people when the firstwhite people came in and started killing them iswell documented. The killing and massacre ofwomen and children as well as adults is welldocumented until the 1930s.

We can sit and watch films like "Gallipoli" andglory in the relevance of that to our fathers; somemem~bers opposite probably used to read aboutevents at Gallipoli in the newspapers. We canglory in the events of the Depression, the mateshipand the Australian ethos of the Depression, andtake an interest because of the relevance to our

prescnt community. But when it comecs toanalysing the massacres of the Kimberley in the1930s we l ike to place cotton wool between us andthose events and say they are historic and irrel-evant and an example of man's inhumanity toman. With respect, I find that difficult to accept.If members who embrace those views had giventhem more thought, I believe they are mcn ofsufficient goodwill to share my concern aboutthem.

The Government deeply regrets the Oppo-sition's position on this Bill. The Governmentwished there to be a spirit of compromiseemanating from the Liberal Party in WesternAustralia. We realised it had put itself out on alimb vis-a-vis its Federal and other colleagues. Wenevertheless hoped there would be some movetowards reasonableness. We gave it the oppor-tunity with the Seaman report. The Liberal Partyhad an opportunity to participate in a dialogue.

Hon. N. F. Moore interjected.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: The member hasobviously had a lot of difficulty understanding orlistening to or being prepared to admit into hisbrain the points I have made. Mr Moore has con-ceded an issue dealt with by Mr Seaman-thatland should be retained by Aboriginal people byway of reserves with existing boundaries andrights. He apparently concedes that the Aborigi-nal Communities Act should remain. Those weretwo issues directly relevant to Mr Seaman's termsof reference in respect of which the Liberal Partycould have participated. Given that it was theGovernment's view that it would introduce legis-lation, the Liberal Party was given an opportunityto participate in the drafting process and declined.

It is interesting to note how much of the com-munity of Western Australia was prepared to par-ticipate. It is interesting to note how far the West-ern Australian Government was able to persuadegroups with such disparate views as the Pastoral-ists and Graziers Association and the AboriginalLands Council to sit down and discuss the issue.

In a sense the failure of this Bill if it does notpass this House is also a triumph for the BurkeLabor Government's ability to get the majority ofthe people of Western Australia, perhaps for thefirst time in history, to have a serious, fair, sen-sible, intelligent, and compassionate view of aproblem to which we have all contributed in thepast and to which we must contribute solutions.That in a sense will be the triumph, whatever theextreme right of the Liberal Party does tonight.

1999

2000 ICOUNCi L]

Question put and a division taken with the fol-lowing result-

Ayes I IHon. J. M. Brawn Hon. Robert HetheringtonHon. D_ K. Dans H-on. Mark NeviltHon. Peter Dowding Hon. S. M. PiantadostHon. Graham Edwards Hon. Tonm StephensHon. Lyta Elliott Hon. Fred McKenzieH-on. Kay Hallahan (Teller)

Noes t7Hon. C. J. Bell Hon, Neil OliverHon. E. J. Charlton Hon. P. G, PendalHon. V. J. Ferry Hon. 1. G, PrattHon. Tom Knight Hon, W. N. StretchHon. A. A. Lewis Hon. P. H. WellsHon. P. H. Lockyer Hon. John WilliamsHon. G. E. Masters Hon. D. J. WordsworthHon. 1. G. Medealt Hon. Margaret MceleerHon. N. F. Moore (Teller)

PairsAyes Noes

Hon. J M. Berinson Hon. 0. C. MacKinnonHon, Garry Kelly Hon. H. W. Gayfer

Question thus negatived.

Bill defea ted.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Shame!

BIJNBURY RAILWAY LANDS BILL

Receipt and First Reading

Bill received ram the Assembly; and, on motionby Hon. Peter Dowding (Minister for Employ-ment and Training), read a first time.

Second Reading

HON. PETER DOWDING (North-MinisterCar Employment and Training) [2.22 a.m.J: Imove-

That the Bill be now read a second time.As part of the Government's commitment to (he'Bunbury 2000" concept, Westrail has moved itsoperations out of the Bunbury city centre to newfacilities constructed at Picwon. Clearance of therailway area in Bunbury is almost complete.

The purpose of Westrail moving was to enableexpansion of the Bunbury central business districtand development of the foreshore area. The landinvolved is mentioned in this Bill in its severalparts and is delineated on Lands and Surveys pub-lic plan: Bunbury 01:33, 01:32, a copy of which Inow table.

Tenure of this land is quite complex at thepresent time, consisting in the main of landresumed in 18H93 for railway purposes and vestedin the Commissioner of Railways, freehold landheld by the commissioner, road reserves, portion ofan 'A"-class reserve, portion of a -B"-class re-serve, and two "C"-class reserves.

The Commissioner of Railways, supported bythe Under Secretary for Lands and Surveys, hasrecommended to me that special legislation is themost practical and prompt way of establishingownership of the property to be disposed of. Thiswill provide a composite historical record and willavoid what might otherwise be a time-consumingand complex exercise.

For the past 15 months negotiations have beenproceeding between Westrail, the Bunbury CityCouncil and other organisations including theLands and Surveys Department and the SouthWest Development Authority, and agreement hasbeen reached about future uses for the whole area.An amendment-No. 19-to the City of Bunburytown planning scheme No. 6 has been preparedgiving effect to these changes in land use purposeand has been approved by the Minister far Plan-ning.

The proposals as agreed provide for exchange ofland between Westrail and council, vesting of landin council, closure of existing roads and opening ofnew roads, and disposal of land by the Com-missioner of Railways.

Briefly, the railway land between Stirling andClifton Streets, and including the existing BlairStreet, will be subdivided into four new lots andrezoned to central business district, Commercial B,special use, arterial roads, local roads, parks, andrecreating and drainage. Blair Street will bereconstructed fronting the foreshore.

All of the land will be subdivided in the normalmanner and the area rezoned for commercial pur-poses sold by the Commissioner of Railways. Pro-ceeds will be used to offset Westrail's costs in re-establishing its operations at Picton.

The existing Bunbury Railway Station will beretained, upgraded and vested in the Bunbury CityCouncil and used as a tourism centre.

In commending the Bill to the House it isstressed that the legislation has the full support ofthe Bunbury City Council, the South West Devel-opment Authority and Westrail, It will greatlyfacilitate the completion of the project and theearly establishment of substantial commercialdevelopers.


The pla n was la bled (see paper No. 563).

Debate adjourned, on motion by H-on. V. J.Ferry.

2000

[Tuesday, 16 April 1985]

OFFENDERS PROBATION AND PAROLEAMENDMENT BILL

Returned

Bill returned from the Assembly withoutamendment.

2001

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE: SPECIALHON. 0. K. DANS (South Metropoli-

tan-Leader of the House) [2.25 a.m.]: I move-That the House at its rising adjourn until

2.15 p.m. today (Wednesday).Question put and passed.House adjourned at 2.26 a.m. (Wednesday).

2002 COUNC IL]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

SHOPPING CENTRESOverseas Ownership

745. Hon. TOM McNEIL. to the Minister forEmployment and Training representing theMinister for Planning:(1) Will the Minister advise which shopping

centre complexes are either partially orwholly owned by overseas interests?

(2) Is the Karrinyup shopping centre di-rectly or indirectly owned by Arabinterests?

(3) Is it the Government's intention to intro-duce legislation to control foreign invest-ment in shopping centre developments?

Hon, PETER DOWDING replied:

(1) and (2) This information is not availablewithin the governmental instrum-entalities in my portfolio.

(3) No, but investments are monitored bythe Commonwealth Governmentthrough the Foreign Investment ReviewBoard.

PLANNING APPROVALS

Shopping Centres

746. Hon. TOM McNEIL, to the Minister forEmployment and Training representing theMinister for Planning:(1) How many shopping centre proposals

were rejected by the MRPA but werelater approved on appeal since 1980?

(2) How many shopping centre proposalswere approved by the MRPA but havenot been constructed?

(3) How many approvals have been grantedby local authorities without reference tothe MRPA for shopping developmentsabove 3 000 square metres since 1980?

Hon. PETER DOWDING replied:

(1) Seven applications were refused by theMetropolitan Region Planning Authoritybut later approved on appeal between1980- 198 5.

(2) The Metropolitan Region PlanningAuthority does not monitor the construc-tion of approved applications.

(3) The Metropolitan Region PlanningAuthority is not advised in sufficient de-tail of approvals by local authorities toenable this information to be collated.

~749. Postponed.

PLANNING: METROPOLITAN REGIONPLANNING AUTHORITY

Retail Shopping Consultative Comititee

751. Hon. TOM McNEIL, to the Minister forEmployment and Training representing theMinister for Planning:(1) Is the retail shopping consultative com-

mittee of the Metropolitan RegionalPlanning Authority still in existence?

(2) If "Yes"-(a) how often in each year since 1980

has the committee met;

(b,) how many shopping centres in themetropolitan area of a floor area inexcess of-(i) 1 000 square metres;(ii) 5 000 square metres; and

(iii) 10 000 square metreswere approved and how many in eachcategory were rejected by the Metropoli-tan Region Planning Authority:. and(c) what was the-

(i) number; and(ii) total

floor area of shops for which approvalwas granted by local authorities withoutreference to the MR PA?

Hon. PETER DOWDING replied:(1) Yes.

(2) (a) 1980 twice;1982 once;1983 once.

(b) I will be writing separately on thesepoints to the member;

(c) (i) and (ii) The Metropolitan Re-gion Planning Authority is not ad-vised in sufficient detail of ap-provals by local authorities to en-able this to be collated.

COM MUNITY SERVICES: HOME AN DCOMMUNITY CARE PROGRAMME

Funding: Guidelines

752. Hon. P. H. WELLS, to the Minister forEmployment and Training representing theM inister for Community Services:

(1) Is it correct that funding under theHome and Community Care Programme

2002

(Tuesday, 16 April 1985]100

has been delayed until late May whileguidelines are being prepared?

(2) In view of the fact that a number ofcommunity programmes which may ben-efit from these funds will probably haveto close because of lack of funds, can theMinister speed up the setting up ofguidelines of this fund?

(3) Will the Minister seek to allow, prior to30 April, consideration of urgent fundingneeds of existing groups that may riskclosure?


(1) There is no delay. No Airm date has beengiven for distribution of funds under theproposed State/Commonwealth Homeand Community Care Programme.

The process of negotiation between theCommonwealth and State Governmentson the form of this programme is necess-arily a protracted one and there aremany complex issues to be resolved be-fore the State Government agrees tocommence the programme.

(2) All funds budgeted for under existingprogrammes for 1984-85 have beenallocated. At this stage. it is incorrect tolink the financial difficulties of any or-ganisation to the proposed HACC Pro-gramme.

(3) It is not possible to allocate any HACCfunds until a formal agreement has beenreached between the State and Com-monwealth Governments.

HEALTH: DENTAL

School Denial Service; Statistics

753. Hon. P. H. WELLS. to the Leader of theHouse representing the Minister for Health:

Can the Minister provide statistical dataof the School Dental Service both instaff numbers, children examined andpatients treated, for centres in the NorthMetropolitan Province?

Hon. D. K. DANS replied:

In 1984 staff numbers were-

3 Dentists

21 Dental therapists

17 Dental clinic assistants

In the same year 18 071 children wereexamined and treated.

SPORT AND RECREATION: CYCLESSafety Campaign

755. Hon. P. H, WELLS, to the AttorneyGeneral representing the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services:(1) Will the Minister arrange for the

National Safety Council or other appro-priate departments to prepare media andother material aimed at educating bothmotorist and cyclist on road safety as-pects to accommodate those commutersriding bicycles?

(2) Will the Minister seek to ensure thatsome of this material is aired on tele-vision in an effort to alert drivers of carsand riders of bicycles to their respectiveobligations to the other users of Perthroads?

Hon. J. M. BERINSON replied:(1) The Police Department, through its

Community Affairs Branch, is heavilyinvolved in the education of push cyclistsand motorists on the matter of pushcycle safety, both in the country andmetropolitan areas.

The Minister for Police and EmergencyServices has agreed in principle to em-bark upon a campaign to make motoristsaware of cyclists' rights andresponsibilities on the road.Details are being formulated in consul-tation with the Bicycle Policy Com-mittee.

(2) It is proposed to use a significant amountof money raised through the Great Plateauction in June, to promote road safetythrough all media means.The Government will also consider othereducation initiatives resulting from thePerth bikeplan study.

COURTS: PROCESS SERVERSLicensing

756. Hon. P. G. PENDAL, to the AttorneyGeneral:

Has consideration been given to thelicensing of process servers, other thansolicitors, for the service of Writs,Family Court processes, Local Courtsummonses and judgment summonsesand Court of Petty Sessions summonses?

H-on. i. M. BERINSON replied:

No.

2003

2004 [COUNCIL]

COURTS: PROCESS SERVERS

Bailiffs: Fees

757. H-on. P. G. PENDAL, to the AttorneyGeneral:

(1) What increases in fees for service andexecution of local court processes havebeen given to Local Court bailiffs in-

(a) 1980:

(b) 198 1;

(c) 1982;

(di) 1983;and

(e) 1984?

(2) I n that period, what has been-

(a) the inflation rates; and

(b) the increase in average weekly earn-i ngs?

(3) In the same period what has been thesalary level and salary increases of assist-ant bailiffs who, in the case of some, arereportedly earning more than somebailiffs?

H-on. J. M. BERINSON replied:(1) 1 am advised that bailiffs' fees have been

increased as follows-

Sum- War-mons rants

10/3/78 4.20 8.605/1/81 4.60 9.50

18/1/82 5.10 10.507/9/84 6.30 13.00

(2) (a) Using CPI increases, being Perthall-ordinaries, as a measure of in-flation with the 1980-81 average asa base of 100, the increase toDecember 1984 quarter has been34.7 per cent;

(b) average weekly earnings, WA allmales index, recorded increases asfollows-

£98 1-82-13.3 per cent1982-83-I13.1 percent1983-84- 7.9 per Cent

(A new series commencedSeptember 1981).

(3) Award rates of pay for an assistantbailiff with two years' service (maximumrate) are as follows-

21 /7/80-$2 19.3018/5/84-$31 1.90

COURTS: PROCESS SERVERS

Bailiffs: Fees

758. Hon. P. G. PENDAL, to the AttorneyGeneral:

(1) Is it correct that he, or his department,has been examining the question of anexternal body to review bailiff fees?

(2) If so, what finality has been reached onthe matter?

(3) What type of external body is being con-sidered?

(4) If such a body has been set up, when is itto report?

(5) Who are the personnel who comprise thisbody?

Hon. J. M. BERINSON replied:

(1) A working party comprisingrepresentatives of bailiffs and CrownLaw Department officers has been estab-lished to examine fee review procedures.

(2) to (5) Not applicable.

"EDWIN FOX"

Purchase

761. Hon. P. G. PENDAL, to the Leader of theHouise representing the Premier:.

(1) Is he aware of reports that the sailingship Edwin Fox, which reputedlybrought convicts to WA in 1858, is stillafloat in Shakespeare Bay in NewZealand?

(2) Will he urgently initiate discussions withthe Minister for the Arts and the WAMaritime Museum and National Trustto see whether the Edwin Fox could bepurchased and towed or otherwisebrought to WA?

(3) Will he urgently initiate discussions withthe Minister in charge of the America'sCup to see whether Commonwealthfunds for the Cup defence could be usedto buy and transport the wreck to WA?


(1) The Government is aware of the reportsconcerning the Edwin Fox.

(2) and (3) Arrangements have been madefor the Western Australian TourismCommission to examine the member'sproposal, in association with other ap-propriate areas of Government.

2004


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Research Facilities

762. Hon. P. G. PENDAL, to the Minister forEmployment and Training representing theDeputy Premier:

Would the Government be prepared toexamine the idea of providing researchfacilities to members of Parliamenteither in the form of an extra staff mem-ber or in the form of a research grant?


The member's request will be examinedin the context of framing the 1985-86Budget.

767. Postponed.

MR J. J. O'CONNOR: CHARGE

Withdrawal: Minister's Letters

768. H-on. P. G. PENDAL, to the Minister forIndustrial Relations:

(1) How many letters, under his reference7393, were sent out relating to theGovernment's decision not to proceedwith the charges against Mr JohnO'Connor?

(2) Were business houses the only recipientsor were other groups of people on themailing list?

(3) If so, what other groups of peoplereceived the letters?

(4) What was the cost of this operation interms of-

(a) postage;

(b) stationery; and

(c) man power?

(5) Who instigated the move?


(1) to (5) After receiving a number ofqueries and requests for informationfrom businesses and individuals aboutthe proper interpretation of the decisionby the Attorney General a letter wascirculated to a number of businesses andindividuals on my instruction.

The work was done in the normal courseof operation of my office and no separaterecord of costings was kept.

GAMBLING: LOTTERIESAdvertising: Cost

769. Hon. TOM McNEIL, to the Minister forRacing and Gaming:

What was the cost in dollars of advertis-ing spent during October 1984 on-(a) standard lotteries;(b) Lotto; and(c) Instant Lotteries?

Hon. D. K. DANS replied:(a) $18401.(b) $108 995.(c) $27 934.

ROTTNEST ISLAND BOARDBike Hire: Takeover

770. Hon. P. G. PENDAL, to the Minister forTourism:(1) Was the decision to

business on Rotnesthands of the privatependently of him orthe Cabinet?

take the bike-hireIsland out of thesector made mnde-other members of

(2) I f not, on what basis was he or any othermember of the Cabinet consulted?

Hon. D. K. DANS replied:(I) Yes.(2) Not applicable.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN:ELECTORATE VISITS

Courtesies771. Hon. A. A. LEWIS, to the Leader of the

House representing the Premier:(1) Is it still the Premier's intention that his

Ministers show the usual courtesies tomembers when those Ministers visit themembers' electorates?

(2) If so, why did not the Minister for WaterResources notify the two LegislativeCouncil members for Lower Central ofhis visit to Collie and Greenbushes?

Hon. D. K. DANS replied:(1) and (2) The courtesies referred to by the

member are not usual. During the nineyears the Minister for Water Resourcessat on the Opposition benches there wasnot one occasion when he was notifiedthat a Government Minister would bevisiting his electorate.

2005

2006 [COUNCIL]

Since the advent of the Burke Govern-ment such courtesies have been extendedto members. However, it is not alwayspossible Car local members to be includedin itineraries on every occasion a Minis-ter visits an electorate.

AGRICULTURE: FARMERS

Demonstration: Pamphlets772. Hon. A. A. LEWIS, to the Leader of the

House representing the Premier:

What was the cost to the Government ofthe pamphlets distributed in his and theMinister for Agriculture's name at thefarmers' march on Tuesday, 2 April1985?


The cost of printing the pamphlets was$403.

DISCRIMINATION: SEXUAL

Sport: Children773. Hon. TOM McNEIL, to the Minister for

Employment and Training representing theMinister for Sport and Recreation:

With regard to the Sex DiscriminationAct and the sports performance capacityof children under 12 years of age, wouldthe Minister advise-

(a) whether the State Government wasmaking a submission to the Federalinquiry;

(b) whether restrictions were currentlyin force to rule out children apply-ing to join teams because of theirSex;

(c) whether children were permitted tojoin teams and be judged on theircapabilities and not on their sex;

(d) which sports would remain free tomake their own judgments onselection by sex; and

(e) which sports were to be consideredsingle sex?

Hon. PETER DOW DING replied:

(a) N o;

(b) to (e) inquiries regarding this mattershould be directed to the appropriatebody; i.e. the Human Rights Com-mission.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

RACING AND TROTTINGRace Aleeuings: Sundays

670. Hon. P. H. LOCKY ER, to the Minister forRacing and Gaming:(1) With regard to the Minister giving per-

mission to the Pinjarra Race Club toconduct a meeting last Sunday, will theMinister explain to the House whetherthis is a sign that other race clubs canapply to conduct race meetings onSundays?

(2) Will the Minister advise the Housewhether he will adhere to what has beenthe criteria in the past in giving consider-ation to Sunday racing for extenuatingcircumstances-for instance, will per-mission in the future apply to race meet-ings which have been washed out orwhich cannot take place because the re-sult of such a meeting would be a burdenon the club?

Hon. D. K. DANS replied:(1) and (2) I take the member's question to

refer to where a race meeting has had tobe abandoned and the club seeks anotherdate from me to coniduct another meet-ing. What I will do, as I have done in thepast, is to look at each case on its meritsand make a decision accordingly.

RACING AND TROTTINGRace Meetings: Sundays

671. Hon. P. H. LOCKYER, to the Minister forRacing and Gaming:

Will the Minister give an unequivocalundertaking to the House that he willnot consider applications from race clubsmerely to conduct race meetings onSundays for other than the reasons ofwhich he has just informed the House?

H-on. D. K. DANS replied:I thought I answered the question veryfully. I will view every case on itsmerits-where a race meeting has had tobe abandoned because of an earthquake,a volcanic eruption, a tornado, or it iswashed out. That is what I have done inthe north-west and what I did in relationto the Pinjarra Race Club.For the benefit of the House, the meet-ing at Pinjarra was the last meeting forthe year1. H-ad it not been the last meet-

2006

[Tuesday, 16 April 1985]

ing for the year I would not have madethe decision I did. The only availabledate for the meeting was last Sunday. Itis not the intention of the Government,at this stage, to allow carte blanche racemeetings to be conducted on Sundays.

By the same token it amazed me thatthere were 5 000 people at the Pinjarraraces on Sunday when the normal at-tendanc for a big meeting which hasstake money of $20 000 is 2 000.

2007

Documents

GAMING AND BETTING (CONTRACTS AND SECURITIES) BILL …